Articles on Oil Train Derailments through 3-20-15

1
News & Opinion Articles
From
July 6, 2013 until March 20, 2015
Regarding the
Transport of Crude Oil
By Rail in Canada & the U.S.
Compiled by Ed Michael
2
3
Table of Contents
July 8, 2013 - Freight Train Derails and Explodes in Lac-Megantic, Quebec ......................................... 17
Lac-Mégantic timeline ............................................................................................................................. 17
FRIDAY, July 5............................................................................................................................... 17
SATURDAY, July 6 ........................................................................................................................ 17
SUNDAY, July 7 ............................................................................................................................. 18
MONDAY, July 8 ........................................................................................................................... 19
TUESDAY, July 9 ........................................................................................................................... 19
WEDNESDAY, July 10 .................................................................................................................. 20
THURSDAY, July 11 ...................................................................................................................... 20
FRIDAY, July 12............................................................................................................................. 21
SATURDAY, July 13 ...................................................................................................................... 21
SUNDAY, July 14 ........................................................................................................................... 21
MONDAY, July 15 ......................................................................................................................... 21
TUESDAY, July 16 ......................................................................................................................... 22
WEDNESDAY, July 17 .................................................................................................................. 22
THURSDAY, July 18...................................................................................................................... 22
FRIDAY, July 19............................................................................................................................. 22
August 12, 2013 - FRA issues emergency order on train car movement ................................................. 23
July 8, 2013 - Runaway Quebec Train’s Owner Battled Safety Issues .................................................... 25
July 10, 2013 – Death Train in Quebec – A story of rail and fossil fuel industry greed run
amok ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Letter to CBC Radio in Vancouver: ‘Some “facts of life” about fossil fuels and their
transportation’ ..................................................................................................................................... 30
4
1. Mapping the tragedy........................................................................................................................ 32
2. Feds cleared plan to have one engineer on trains ............................................................................ 33
3. Lac Megantic: MMA Railway’s history of cost-cutting .................................................................. 35
4. As shock turns to rage, Lac-Mégantic residents hopeful rail won’t return ...................................... 37
5. Contradictions amid a shattered town’s anger and despair ............................................................. 38
July 11, 2013 - Despite accident, Burkhardt still believes in one-person crews ......................... 48
July 12, 2013 - Quebec train disaster investigation will 'change the industry'......................................... 49
July 12, 2013 - Before Blast, Hauling Oil Revived a Tiny Railroad........................................................ 50
July 12, 2013 - Canada rail crash stirs debate over Keystone XL pipeline delay .................................... 52
July 11, 2013 - Quebec's Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster not just tragedy, but corporate crime .............. 54
July 23, 2013 - Transport Canada introduces emergency rules for train safety ....................................... 56
July 19, 2013 - Lac-Megantic: TSB calls for urgent rail safety review ................................................... 58
July 22, 2013 - Schumer wants crude oil carried in more secure tank cars ............................................. 58
July 24, 2013 Town stuck with $4M cleanup bill .................................................................................... 59
July 24, 2013 - Transport Canada downplayed risks of shipping oil by rail ............................................ 61
MM&A used siding track for storage ........................................................................................ 64
5. Wrongful death suit in Quebec train crash filed in U.S. ........................................................ 65
September 9, 2013 – Statement by RWU - A Discussion of the BLET and UTU Response to
Lac Megantic............................................................................................................................................ 66
September 9, 2013 – Statement by RWU - The Lac Megantic Runaway Train Disaster Why
Did it Happen? ......................................................................................................................................... 69
September 13, 2013 - Broken piston blamed for fire that led to Lac-Mégantic disaster ......................... 72
September 11, 2013 - Crude that exploded in Lac-Mégantic was mislabelled: officials ......................... 74
September 21, 2013 - Off the Rails: How a Lack of Oversight Doomed Lac-Megantic ......................... 76
November 8, 2013 - Train carrying crude oil explodes, spills oil into Alabama wetlands ...................... 80
5
December 30, 2013 - Mile-long train carrying crude oil derails, explodes in North Dakota................... 81
October 22, 2013 - The Lac-Mégantic Disaster ....................................................................................... 82
January 1, 2014 - Crude-Oil Impurities Are Probed in Rail Blasts .......................................................... 82
January 23, 2014 NTSB calls for tougher standards on trains carrying crude oil .................................... 84
Oil Boom Raises Safety Concerns for Whistleblower Railworker .......................................................... 86
February 14, 2014 - Lac-Mégantic victims sue Canadian government for allegedly failing to
regulate MM&A....................................................................................................................................... 89
FEB. 21, 2014 - To Make Shipping Oil Safer, Railroads Agree to 8 Measures ....................................... 89
February 25, 2014 - U.S. Issues Emergency Testing Order to Crude Oil Rail Shippers .......................... 92
February 27, 2014 - Poorly Regulated, High-Speed 'Bomb Trains' Are One Crash Away from
Devastating Towns in NYC Suburbs ....................................................................................................... 94
March 1, 2014 - Tank Car Debate Rolls On............................................................................................. 98
March 02, 2014 - Hawkins Calls for Moratorium on Oil Shipment By Rail and No Tar Sands
Oil in New York ..................................................................................................................................... 101
March 3, 2014 - In Dakota Oil Patch, Trains Trump Pipelines .............................................................. 103
March 6, 2014 - Canadian Regulators Say Oil in Train Accident Was as Volatile as Gasoline ............. 104
March 13, 2014 - Surge in Rail Shipments of Oil Sidetracks Other Industries ..................................... 106
April 23, 2014 - Canadian government issues tank car directives ......................................................... 108
April 30, 2014 - CSX Train Derails in Fiery Crash in VA ..................................................................... 109
May 1, 2014 - NTSB takes the lead in CSX oil train wreck, politicians call for oil-by-rail
regulations .............................................................................................................................................. 111
May 7, 2014 - Spuyten Duyvil Derailment Inspires Legislation Calling for Sweeping Rail
Safety Reforms ....................................................................................................................................... 112
May 22 2014 - Secrecy of Oil-by-Train Shipments Causes Concern Across the U.S. .......................... 113
May 20 2014 - Lac-Mégantic: Suppressing the Truth Behind Regulatory Failure ................................ 116
June 10 2014 - Rail Companies Want To Keep Oil Train Route Information A Secret In
Oregon And Washington ........................................................................................................................ 119
6
July 2 2014 - For Oil-By-Rail, a Battle Between “Right to Know” and “Need to Know” .................... 121
July 6, 2014 What Have We Learned Since Lac-Mégantic? .................................................................. 123
July 15, 2014 - Industry To Feds: We Will Keep Using Old Unsafe Tank Cars For Three More
Years, or Longer If We Feel Like It ........................................................................................................ 125
July 22, 2014 - Crew Fatigue Persists as Oil By Rail Increases Risks................................................... 126
July 29 2014 - Warren Buffett Really Likes Oil Trains - Despite the Explosions ................................. 130
August 4 2014 - Worker Safety Questioned as Trains and Accidents Multiply ..................................... 133
August 7, 2014 - Rail Company Involved in Quebec Explosion Files for Bankruptcy ......................... 136
August 12 2014 - Crude-by-rail terminals to expand in Alberta, New Mexico ..................................... 136
August 19, 2014 Lac-Mégantic runaway train and derailment investigation summary by TSB ........... 137
The accident ...................................................................................................................................... 138
Aftermath and emergency response .................................................................................................. 139
Key issues in the investigation .......................................................................................................... 139
Fire in the locomotive ....................................................................................................................... 140
Braking force ..................................................................................................................................... 140
Air brakes 101 ................................................................................................................................... 141
Hand brakes 101 ................................................................................................................................ 142
Class 111 tank cars: Damage and construction ................................................................................. 142
Safety culture at MMA ...................................................................................................................... 145
Transport Canada .............................................................................................................................. 145
Single-person crews .......................................................................................................................... 145
Dangerous goods: Inadequate testing, monitoring, and transport ..................................................... 146
Safety action following the accident ................................................................................................. 146
TSB Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 146
Footnotes ........................................................................................................................................... 147
7
Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 147
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 148
August 19 2014 - Report Reveals Cost Cutting Measures At Heart Of Lac-Megantic Oil Train
Disaster .................................................................................................................................................. 149
Engine Fire ........................................................................................................................................ 149
Single Operator Risks........................................................................................................................ 151
August 19, 2014 - Lac-Mégantic derailment: Anatomy of a disaster .................................................... 152
August 29 2014 - Union wants charges dropped against railway employees in Lac-Megantic
disaster ................................................................................................................................................... 153
September 10, 2014 - Canada vs. the USA on Oil Train Standards ....................................................... 156
October 7, 2014 - Major train derailment and fire near Wadena, Sask. ................................................. 159
October 14, 2013 - Lac-Mégantic Blast Leaves Impact On Town, Rail Industry .................................. 161
December 15, 2014 - Inspectors find 100 defects on crude oil trains, tracks ........................................ 164
November 25, 2014 - Gov’t Data Sharpens Focus on Crude-Oil Train Routes ..................................... 165
November 10, 2014 - Tories tout safety measures amid slashes to transport budget............................. 170
December 2, 2014 - Green groups sue DOT over oil-by-rail regulations .............................................. 172
December 6, 2014 - CA Feather River train derailment raises new concerns about health and
safety ...................................................................................................................................................... 173
December 16, 2014 - Threatening America Oil Trains: Unsafe (and Unnecessary) at Any
Speed ...................................................................................................................................................... 176
January 15, 2015 - US Department of Transportation Delays New Rules on 'Bomb Trains' ................. 178
January 2, 2015 - Oil Train Spills Hit Record Level in 2014 ................................................................ 180
January 9, 2015 - Lac-Mégantic train victims reach $200M settlement ................................................ 182
January 28, 2015 - Lac-Mégantic disaster by the numbers: Catalogue of a tragedy .............................. 183
Human and material losses ................................................................................................................ 185
Other numbers from the Lac-Mégantic public health report: ............................................................ 185
8
February 2, 2015 - The Oil Train Danger............................................................................................... 187
What Railway Workers Think about Oil Trains ..................................................................................... 188
Feb 16, 2015 - West Virginia Train Derailment Sends Oil Tanker Into River ...................................... 189
February 17 2015 Train That Derailed in West Virginia Had Modern Tanker Cars Hailed as
Safe ........................................................................................................................................................ 191
February 17, 2015 - Derailments highlights crude oil train, water safety issues ................................... 193
February 20, 2015 - Company Whose Train Exploded Had Spent Millions on Lobbying,
Campaign Contributions ........................................................................................................................ 195
Febuary 22, 2015 - DOT predicts fuel-hauling trains will derail 10 times a year; cost $4
billion; 100's killed................................................................................................................................. 196
February 15, 2015 - CN wreck near Gogama has 29 cars derailed ........................................................ 198
February 25, 2015 - Derailment fallout: Virginia penalizes CSX for oil spill; RESPONSE Act
re-enters Congress .................................................................................................................................. 200
February 17, 2015 - After Oil Train Derailment, Will West Virginia Finally Protect Its Water
Supply? .................................................................................................................................................. 201
February 17, 2015 - Train explosion, spill could bring crude oil to Cincinnati water ........................... 203
February, 26 2015 - The oil trains and the cities: How safe? ................................................................. 204
March 2, 2015 - Transporting Tar Sands “As Dangerous” As Shale Oil ............................................... 208
March 1, 2015 - Aging Track Caused CN Fiery Derailment.................................................................. 210
March 2, 2015 - Crude on Derailed Train Contained High Level of Gas .............................................. 211
March 2, 2015 - PennEnvironment crunched the numbers and our new oil trains report
contains some shocking data. ................................................................................................................. 213
January 20, 2015 - Building Their Own Gallows: The Oil Pipelines .................................................... 214
February 4 , 2015 - Authorities: 11 cars of freight train derail in Iowa; 3 cars catch fire, 3
plunge into river ..................................................................................................................................... 217
February 5, 2015 - Top U.S. rail administrator has little train experience ............................................. 218
February 2, 2015 - Natural gas could come to Fairbanks via railroad ................................................... 219
February 12, 2015 - Revised Oil-Train Safety Rule Said to Delay Upgrade Deadline .......................... 221
9
February 16, 2015 - West Virginia Train Derailment Sends Oil Tanker Into River ............................... 223
February 17, 2015 - Derailments highlights crude oil train, water safety issues ................................... 224
February 17, 2015 U.S. oil trains are taking high-stakes risks with lives: Kemp .................................. 226
February 18, 2015 - Damaged rail cars enjoy lenient rules as oil train explosions plague small
towns ...................................................................................................................................................... 229
February 18, 2015 - Oil train fireball seen adding pressure for U.S. safety rule ................................... 235
February 19, 2015 - Getting on Board the Regulatory Train ................................................................. 237
February 17, 2015 - Pipeline, trucks, trains or boats all spill crude oil ................................................. 240
February 26, 2015 - Who’s to Blame for the Exploding Oil Trains? ..................................................... 241
February 23, 2015 - Shell's Washington rail project faces lengthy delay............................................... 243
March 2, 2015 -Inspector General Auditing FRA's Railroad Bridge Safety Oversight ......................... 244
March 2, 2015 - Terrorism poses a greater risk to railways than derailments: CP’s
Hunter Harrison ..................................................................................................................................... 245
Aging Track Caused CN Fiery Derailment ............................................................................................ 246
March 4, 2015 - New bills seek to strengthen crude-by-rail safety, extend short-line tax credit ........... 247
March 5, 2015 - Obama admin balked at improving standards for gas in oil ‘bomb trains’ –
report ...................................................................................................................................................... 248
March 5, 2015 - Freight train carrying crude oil derails near Illinois city ............................................. 250
March 5, 2015 - Yet Another Oil Train Derails, Catches Fire, This Time in Illinois ............................. 252
March 5, 2015 - Obama admin balked at improving standards for gas in oil ‘bomb trains’ –
report ...................................................................................................................................................... 254
March 6, 2015 - Washington state cites crude-by-rail safety measures ................................................. 256
March 2015 - 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study ............................................................. 257
*The Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study is available at: ...................... 258
February 25, 2015 - To stop Big Oil, environmentalists need labor unions........................................... 259
March 6, 2015 - Oil on Train in Illinois Derailment Shipped by Mercuria Energy ............................... 262
10
March 6, 2015 – Galena Derailment EPA PolSitRep #1 ........................................................................ 263
March 8, 2015 – Galena derailment EPA PolSitRep #2........................................................................ 269
March 6, 2015 - Macomb’s plan for derailment: A Western Courier special report about the
dangers on rail ........................................................................................................................................ 275
March 7, 2015 - EPA: Illinois oil train derailment threatens Mississippi River .................................... 277
March 8, 2015 - CN investigates another fiery train derailment near Gogama ..................................... 279
March 8, 2015 - Province criticizes feds on rail safety after northern Ontario derailment .................... 281
March 8, 2015 - CN Rail, BNSF Tackle Accidents as Group Seeks Ban on Oil Trains ........................ 282
March 9, 2015 - Canadian government speeds up work to develop safer tank cars .............................. 284
March 9, 2015 - Pipelines are safest method of moving oil .................................................................. 285
March 9, 2015 - Wisconsin not immune from possible train derailment............................................... 287
March 9, 2015 - Lac-Mégantic: By no means the last explosion of its kind ......................................... 287
March 9, 2015 - Crude oil train derailment risk has Lehigh Valley first responders on alert ................ 288
March 9, 2015 - Exploding Trains and Crude Oil - Listen to the Workers ............................................ 291
March 9, 2015 - Lisa Raitt says Gogama train derailments raise questions about CN
operations ............................................................................................................................................... 293
March 9, 2015 - Oil train fires reveal problematic safety culture: Kemp .............................................. 295
March 9, 2015 - Forget banning oil-by-rail, we need to clean up the train wreck of railway
regulation ............................................................................................................................................... 298
March 9, 2015 - Oil Train Derailments Muddy Railroad Sector Earnings ............................................ 300
March 10, 2015 - Spate of oil train derailments raises safety concerns, says Federal Railroad
administrator .......................................................................................................................................... 301
March 10, 2015 - America is literally on fire: How out-of-control oil spills are destroying our
population centers .................................................................................................................................. 303
March 10, 2015 - Wisconsin legislators call for increased crude-by-rail oversight ............................... 305
March 10, 2015 - Time to call them Obama trains ................................................................................ 306
March 10, 2015 - Spate of oil train derailments raises safety concerns ................................................. 308
11
March 10, 2015 - Sen. Baldwin, Rep. Kind urge Obama to issue crude-oil train standards ................. 310
March 10, 2015 - Trains in Canada derailments carried synthetic crude for Valero .............................. 310
March 10, 2015 - Council of Canadians Calls for Immediate Halt to Crude Shipments After
Derailments and Explosions Near Gogama, Ontario ............................................................................. 312
March 10, 2015 - Bill seeks better training for responders to oil train crashes ..................................... 313
Senator Heitkamp’s Railroad Emergency Services Preparedness, Operational Needs, and
Safety Evaluation (RESPONSE) Act ..................................................................................................... 313
March 10, 2015 - Bill would mandate larger crew on oil trains ............................................................ 315
Increase of oil trains .......................................................................................................................... 316
Current staffing.................................................................................................................................. 317
March 10, 2015 - State leaders disagree on rail oil safety plans ............................................................ 317
March 11, 2015 - Keystone isn’t the only pipeline proposal out there .................................................. 319
Energy East:....................................................................................................................................... 320
Line 9 Reversal and Expansion: ........................................................................................................ 320
Alberta Clipper Expansion: ............................................................................................................... 321
Northern Gateway: ............................................................................................................................ 321
Trans Mountain Expansion Project: .................................................................................................. 321
White Cliffs Expansion: .................................................................................................................... 321
Sandpiper: ......................................................................................................................................... 321
Flanagan South: ................................................................................................................................. 321
Line 3 Replacement:.......................................................................................................................... 321
Alberta to Alaska Pipeline: ................................................................................................................ 321
Alberta to Alaska Railroad: ............................................................................................................... 321
March 11, 2015 - Spate of derailments deepens fear of oil train disaster .............................................. 322
March 11, 2015 - Galena marks latest in series of explosive railway accidents .................................... 323
12
Rail vs pipeline safety ....................................................................................................................... 324
Accident increases ............................................................................................................................. 325
Off-track safety.................................................................................................................................. 325
Environmental impacts...................................................................................................................... 326
March 12, 2015 - Dangerous Trains, Aging Rails .................................................................................. 326
March 14, 2015 - Prospect of oil train derailment worries Longmont residents ................................... 329
March 15, 2015 - Rail Industry Lobbied Against New Oil-by-Rail Safety Regulations The Day
After Rail Accident ................................................................................................................................ 331
March 15, 2015 - After a spate of train wrecks, Congress takes a new view of federal rail
agency .................................................................................................................................................... 335
March 16, 2015 - P.A. needs a train derailment task force, according to Casey .................................... 338
March 16, 2015 - Refiners Sue BNSF Railway Over $1,000 Oil Tank Car Surcharge ......................... 339
Train Fires ......................................................................................................................................... 340
New Standards................................................................................................................................... 340
March 17 - Latest inspection turns up railroad tanker defects ............................................................... 340
Track Inspections............................................................................................................................... 342
Tank Car Inspections ......................................................................................................................... 343
March 17, 2015 - US Railroads Must Answer for Oil Train Mishaps ................................................... 344
March 18, 2015 - Berkeley: Council screens video of exploding oil trains ........................................... 345
March 19, 2015 - CN track infrastructure faults under TSB's microscope ............................................ 346
March 19, 2015 - BNSF Railway faces penalties for reporting violations ............................................ 348
March 19, 2015 - Towns launch 'David and Goliath' challenges to crude-by-rail traffic First of
two stories. ............................................................................................................................................. 349
Thrown into the fray .......................................................................................................................... 350
'Extreme measures' ............................................................................................................................ 351
'David and Goliath' ............................................................................................................................ 352
13
March 19, 2015 - Union Pacific request to haul liquefied natural gas draws criticism ......................... 353
March 20, 2015 - Environmentalists play 'Whac-A-Mole' to stall crude-by-rail projects Second
of two stories. ......................................................................................................................................... 354
State laws in play............................................................................................................................... 356
Unified strategy? ............................................................................................................................... 357
'Business as usual' ............................................................................................................................. 358
March 20, 2015 - Top 10 Questions About Oil Trains: Industry Lobbies for Weak Rules While
Derailment Fire Rages ........................................................................................................................... 359
March 20, 2015 - US oil train accidents won't go away any time soon ................................................. 361
The rate of accidents has actually declined ....................................................................................... 361
Rail tankers carrying crude go through cities and along rivers ......................................................... 362
The safety standards could improve .................................................................................................. 363
Shale crude oil is more combustible ................................................................................................. 363
March 20, 2015 - BNSF Railway faces fines in Washington state over hazardous spills ...................... 364
March 21, 2015 - Virginia, CSX offer advice for crude-by-rail accidents ............................................. 365
Lynchburg was lucky ......................................................................................................................... 365
Be prepared ....................................................................................................................................... 367
March 2015 - What can states do to promote rail safety? (guest comment) .......................................... 368
An 'Audacious' Attempt ................................................................................................................ 368
From Wikipedia - Lac-Mégantic rail disaster ........................................................................................ 370
Background ....................................................................................................................................... 371
The route ....................................................................................................................................... 371
The train ............................................................................................................................................ 372
Chronology ........................................................................................................................................ 373
Eight months prior to the derailment ............................................................................................ 373
14
Events shortly prior to the derailment .......................................................................................... 374
Derailment and explosion ............................................................................................................. 376
Emergency response ..................................................................................................................... 377
Casualties and damage ...................................................................................................................... 378
List of victims ............................................................................................................................... 379
Aftermath .......................................................................................................................................... 380
Changes to operations and procedures .............................................................................................. 381
Response ........................................................................................................................................... 383
Reaction from environmentalists .................................................................................................. 383
Technical investigation ...................................................................................................................... 383
TSB Findings..................................................................................................................................... 385
TSB Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 387
Omissions in the TSB report ........................................................................................................ 388
Criminal investigation ....................................................................................................................... 388
Environmental impact ....................................................................................................................... 389
Contamination of land .................................................................................................................. 389
Contamination of waterways ........................................................................................................ 390
Cleanup and environmental costs ................................................................................................. 390
Political impact.................................................................................................................................. 391
Municipal reaction ........................................................................................................................ 391
Provincial reaction ........................................................................................................................ 393
Maine and United States ............................................................................................................... 393
Canadian federal impact ............................................................................................................... 394
Litigation ........................................................................................................................................... 396
15
Regulatory impact ............................................................................................................................. 397
Rebuilding efforts .............................................................................................................................. 398
Citations ............................................................................................................................................ 399
Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 415
External links .................................................................................................................................... 415
Last moments of Lac-Mégantic: Survivors share their stories ............................................................... 416
Last Call ................................................................................................................................................. 416
The engineer: Thomas Harding ......................................................................................................... 418
The bar owner: Yannick Gagné ......................................................................................................... 420
The waitress: Karine Blanchette........................................................................................................ 425
The daughter: Estel Blanchet ............................................................................................................ 427
The musician: Yvon Ricard ............................................................................................................... 429
The hockey star: Mathieu Pelletier .................................................................................................... 432
The art teacher: René Simard ............................................................................................................ 435
The Lafontaines: Josée and Christian................................................................................................ 438
‘I started crying like a child’ ............................................................................................................. 439
Epilogue ............................................................................................................................................ 443
These are the lost of Lac-Mégantic ........................................................................................................ 444
Marie-Semie Alliance, 22 Jimmy Sirois ..................................................................................... 445
Guy Bolduc, 43 .......................................................................................................................... 445
Talitha Coumi Bégnoche, 30 Bianka Bégnoche, 9 Alyssa Bégnoche, 4..................................... 445
Diane Bizier, 46 Marie-Noëlle Faucher, 36 Gaétan Lafontaine, 33 Karine Lafontaine, 35
Joanie Turmel, 29 ...................................................................................................................... 446
Stéphane Bolduc, 37 Karine Champagne, 36 ............................................................................ 446
Yannick Bouchard, 36................................................................................................................ 447
16
Marie-France Boulet, 62 Richard Veilleux, 63 .......................................................................... 447
Yves Boulet, 51 Martin Rodrigue, 48 ........................................................................................ 448
Frédéric Boutin, 19.................................................................................................................... 449
Geneviève Breton, 28 ............................................................................................................... 449
Sylvie Charron, 50 ..................................................................................................................... 449
Kathy Clusiault, 24 .................................................................................................................... 450
Réal Custeau, 57 ....................................................................................................................... 450
Maxime Dubois, 27 David Lacroix-Beaudoin, 27 Mathieu Pelletier, 29 Éric Pépin, 28 ............ 450
Natachat Gaudreau, 41 ............................................................................................................. 451
Michel Guertin, Jr., 33............................................................................................................... 452
Jo-Annie Lapointe, 20 ............................................................................................................... 452
Stéphane Lapierre, 45 ............................................................................................................... 452
Henriette Latulippe, 61 ............................................................................................................. 453
David Martin, 36 ....................................................................................................................... 453
Roger Paquet, 61 ...................................................................................................................... 453
Éliane Parenteau-Boulanger, 93 ............................................................................................... 454
Louisette Poirier-Picard Wilfrid Ratsch ..................................................................................... 454
Marianne Poulin, 23 Kevin Roy, 29 ........................................................................................... 455
Jean-Pierre Roy, 56 ................................................................................................................... 455
Mélissa Roy, 29 ......................................................................................................................... 455
Andrée-Anne Sévigny, 26 .......................................................................................................... 456
Élodie Turcotte, 18 .................................................................................................................... 456
Lucie Vadnais, 49 ...................................................................................................................... 457
Jean-Guy Veilleux, 32 ................................................................................................................ 457
17
July 8, 2013 - Freight Train Derails and Explodes in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec
Alan Taylor
Early Saturday, a locomotive pulling a 72-car freight train full of crude oil from North Dakota
was parked for the night 11 km west of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, the engineer checking into a
nearby hotel. Sometime shortly after, the unattended train began to roll away, toward LacMegantic -- investigators are still looking for the cause. The crude oil cars, rolling downhill,
broke free of the locomotives and picked up speed, derailing at a curve in the center of LacMegantic, a lakeside town of about 6,000 people. Six massive explosions followed, sending up
huge fireballs and setting dozens of buildings ablaze. Thousands were evacuated, and so far, five
deaths have been confirmed. Authorities worry the toll will climb much higher, as more than 40
residents are still listed as missing.
Lac-Mégantic timeline
The Gazette 07.06.2013
FRIDAY, July 5
11:25 p.m.: An engineer from the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) parks a train
carrying 72 tankers, each carrying thousands of litres of crude oil (roughly 100,000 litres), and
five locomotives in Nantes, approximately 11 kilometres outside of Lac-Mégantic. According to
the MMA, he had stopped for a crew change and then retired to a nearby motel for the night.
11:30 p.m.: A resident in Nantes calls 911 after seeing a parked locomotive on fire between
Nantes and Lac-Mégantic. Firefighters arrive on the scene and are able to extinguish the blaze.
11:42 p.m.: 12 firefighters arrive on the scene. Nobody (from MMA or otherwise) was there.
SATURDAY, July 6
12:12 a.m.: Fire in locomotive is extinguished.
12:13 to 12:15 a.m.: Two MMA employees arrive on the scene. Firefighters leave soon after
establishing that the situation is under control.
1:15 a.m.: The first explosion in Lac-Mégantic is reported, followed by at least two others. Initial
reports suggest 30 buildings are destroyed. Much of downtown is flooded with crude oil and fire.
Patrons of a crowded bar flee. Many remain unaccounted for.
1:15 a.m. to 4 a.m.: Explosions continue to rock the town as tanker cars containing oil ignite.
Firefighters and volunteers are alerted and begin assessing the scene. They receive backup from
18
Montreal and surrounding areas. Firefighters from Nantes are alerted, and firefighters come from
as far as Farmington, Me., to help manage the crisis. About 1,000 people are removed from the
area because of toxic fumes and dangerous particles.
1:39 a.m.: Firefighters from Nantes receive call to respond to explosion in Lac-Mégantic.
9 a.m. (approximately): The Canadian Red Cross begins setting up a temporary shelter for
evacuees at the Polyvalente Montignac — a local high school. Later in the day, a spokesperson
confirms that 250 beds are available but the waiting list exceeds 500. A Facebook group is set up
to track people who are missing and those who have been accounted for. As of early Sunday
morning, there are more than 15,000 members active on the group, a reported 199 people missing
and 158 found.
1 p.m. (approximately): A second evacuation order is issued for another 1,000 people from a
community downwind from the blast site. An analysis by the Sécurité civile de l’Estrie detects
dangerous levels of toxic fumes.
2 p.m.: Firefighters contain the blaze, preventing it from spreading further. Denis Lauzon,
spokesperson for the volunteer fire department, says later: “We’ve stopped the fire, the (rest of)
downtown is safe.”
3:30 p.m.: The Sûreté du Québec holds its first news conference and confirms that one person is
confirmed dead. Police say they expect more casualties, but won’t speculate about how many
people are still missing. Reports suggested upwards of 60 people are still unaccounted for.
4 p.m.: Quebec Premier Pauline Marois surveys the scene and holds a news conference. She
says she is profoundly saddened by the devastation in Lac-Mégantic.
10 p.m.: A boil water advisory is issued to residents of Lac-Mégantic and Mayor Colette RoyLaroche warns municipalities downstream from the blast site to closely monitor their water
quality.
Fires continue to blaze throughout Saturday night and into Sunday morning.
SUNDAY, July 7
9 a.m.: Authorities announce that two more people are confirmed dead and say the death toll is
expected to rise.
Noon: Authorities announce that an additional two bodies have been recovered, raising the
official death toll to five. They also give the first official count of missing: 40 people are
unaccounted for. The perimeter around the disaster site is reduced, allowing some people to
return home.
3 p.m.: The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) posts on Twitter saying it has
recovered the train’s event recorder.
19
4:30 p.m.: Prime Minister Stephen Harper holds a news conference after touring the devastation.
“It’s like a war zone,” he says.
5 p.m.: Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway issues a statement saying company officials
haven’t been able to conduct their own investigation and pledge support to the community.
7 p.m.: Authorities hold a news conference and explain that investigators still haven’t been able
to tour the full blast zone because many areas are still too hot. The Transportation Safety Board
has brought in nine investigators and the coroner’s office has a special forensic identification
team on site to help identify remains.
MONDAY, July 8
7 a.m.: The bodies of two of the five people confirmed dead have been taken to Montreal but
identification may prove a lengthy process, says Geneviève Guilbault, a spokesperson for the
Quebec coroner’s office. The number of people missing remains at about 40, says Sgt. Benoit
Richard of the Sûreté du Québec.
8:30 a.m.: Government officials ask area residents to “be patient” as Environment Quebec
workers try to determine whether it is safe for people evacuated from the Fatima sector to return
home. “We’re doing everything we can to get them home as quickly as possible,” says the LacMégantic mayor. A boil-water advisory remains in effect, as a precaution.
5 p.m.: At a press conference, the SQ announces that the official death toll has risen to 13, and
that the number of missing now officially stands at 50. Coroner’s office spokesperson Geneviève
Guilbeault urges families of the missing to present themselves at their makeshift office and bring
personal items that could contain the missing person’s DNA, such as baseball caps, toothbrushes,
razors and combs.
TUESDAY, July 9
8:30 a.m.: The mayor announces that about 1,200 residents who had been evacuated from
their homes are allowed to return, beginning immediately. The homes of about 600 people,
near the epicentre, remain off-limits. The boil-water advisory remains in effect.
10:15 a.m.: Just prior to the catastrophic derailment, the train had been rolling — unattended —
down a 1.2-degree grade and picking up speed, head investigator Donald Ross of the TSB says.
When the runaway train reached a curve in the heart of Lac-Mégantic, he adds, it was going
faster than recommended for that turn. That’s where the tanker cars tumbled off the track.
“We’re examining all the brake systems,” Ross says. “But until we had a chance to do our work,
were not going to comment on what was or wasn’t working.”
5 p.m.: At a press conference, the SQ announces that two more bodies have been recovered,
bringing the total number of confirmed deaths to 15. Fifty people in total are still unaccounted
for.
20
WEDNESDAY, July 10
8:30 a.m.: Many residents of the Lac-Mégantic area are back at work. “All industries will be
operational as of this morning,” Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche announces at a media briefing.
“Tourism is an important part in our rebuilding,” she adds. “I also want to thank all the people
for their messages of support from all over the world. These messages give us the strength and
courage to keep going.” The boil-water advisory remains in effect.
9:30 a.m.: The estimated number of missing is now hovering around 60, including the 15
confirmed dead, Insp. Michel Forget of the Sûreté du Québec says. Investigators won’t make
names public, noting that some persons earlier considered missing have since been located.
Forget warned of the emotional toll a wrong name on the list has on those working and waiting in
the town.
11:30 a.m.: The Quebec government promises an immediate $60 million to help the people of
Lac-Mégantic, its municipal government and its businesses deal with the emergency and begin
the rebuilding process. “All of Quebec is in mourning,” Premier Pauline Marois says. Flags at the
National Assembly and government buildings throughout the province will fly at half-mast for
one week, beginning Thursday.
2 p.m.: At a press conference in Lac-Mégantic, MMA chairman Edward Burkhardt says
the company has not had time to do a complete investigation of the red zone, and revealed that
the MMA employee working early Saturday has been suspended without pay. Burkhardt no
longer believes that the employee appropriately applied the handbrakes on the cars.
6 p.m.: The SQ announces that 20 people are confirmed dead. The coroner’s office
announces that it has been able to identify a first victim, but out of respect for the person’s
family, would not reveal any more details about the person’s identity. The total number of
missing people is now 50, down from the 60 announced on earlier today.
THURSDAY, July 11
1 p.m.: In her second visit to the town, Premier Pauline Marois speaks to media in LacMégantic and says social services, civil security and municipal services "are being well
done" and carried out on a coordinated basis. Marois also called MMA chairman Burkhardt's
attitude "deplorable" and "unacceptable."
3:30 p.m.: Lac-Mégantinc Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche announces that 600 more residents in
the Cousineau sector will be allowed back home on Friday. About 200 residents remain barred
from their homes.
5:30 p.m.: At a press conference, the SQ increases the confirmed death toll to 24. The
coroner's office confirms that the first identified victim was 93-year-old Éliane Parenteau.
21
FRIDAY, July 12
3:30 p.m.: The TSB holds a press conference to update the status of the investigation into what
caused the explosion. They say they are looking into several factors that could have contributed
to the train running off the rails.
“This will be a complex investigation, and I want to be clear — it will take months or more,”
said TSB chair Wendy Tadros.
4:30 p.m.: The SQ’s coroner’s office holds a press conference to let the public know more
bodies had been recovered from the disaster site, bringing the death toll to 28. Seven more of the
dead had been identified, but were not made public by the authorities.
Some areas cannot be investigated due to toxic fumes coming from the crude oil the train was
carrying through Lac-Mégantic.
“It was putting our lives in danger, even though our workers have masks,” said Sûreté du Québec
spokesperson Michel Forget.
9:00 p.m.: Residents hold a candlelight vigil to mourn those lost in the explosion. More than 50
cities across the province held vigils as well.
SATURDAY, July 13
4:30 p.m.: The remains of five more people have been recovered from the rubble, bringing the
confirmed death toll to 33, the SQ says.
SUNDAY, July 14
Noon: SQ officers on the site observe a minute of silence in memory of the dead.
4 p.m.: Two more bodies have been pulled from the carnage, the SQ says, bringing the total
number of victims to 35.
The area's boil-water alert is lifted.
Two commercial buildings are knocked down using heavy equipment because they were unsafe
to enter. Blazing heat and dangerous materials in the so-called red zone have made for slow
going during the search. In some areas, crews wearing protective gear and breathing apparatus
are working in 15-minute shifts to avoid heat exhaustion.
MONDAY, July 15
10:15 a.m.: A class-action lawsuit announced against MMA and railway chairman Edward
Burkhardt, freshly filed in the Sherbrooke courthouse, could prove one of the largest in Canadian
history if Quebec Superior Court gives it the green light. Proposed class representatives are Guy
Ouellet, whose wife died, and Yannick Gagné, owner of Musi-Café. Three of his employees were
22
killed when his popular bar was completely engulfed in flames. Jeff Orenstein, of Consumer Law
Group Inc. in Montreal, said there is no dollar figure on the suit yet, but he guessed it would be
among the largest ever filed in Canada.
4 p.m.: The SQ announces two more bodies have been found, bringing the confirmed death toll
to 37. Eleven of the victims have been identified by the coroner's office, eight of whom were
named publicly. But Geneviève Guilbault, a spokesperson for the coroner's office, adds that none
of the remains recovered have been released to the families, since tests are under way to confirm
the cause of death.
TUESDAY, July 16
4 p.m.: The Sureté du Québec announced it has found the remains of one more person in the
rubble of the Lac-Mégantic train derailment, to bring the total of confirmed dead to 38. A
spokesperson for the coroner’s office announced that investigators have identified one more
victim, bringing the total of identified victims to 12. The total number of presumed victims
remains at 50.
WEDNESDAY, July 17
4 p.m.: A spokesperson for the Quebec coroner's office said Wednesday afternoon that the
identities of five more victims of the Lac-Megantic derailment have been determined, bringing
the number of identified victims to 17. Names will likely be made public Friday morning on
Quebec coroner's website, said Genevieve Guilbault. No additional bodies were recovered from
the rubble Wednesday, with the total number of confirmed victims remaining at 38, among the
50 presumed dead.
THURSDAY, July 18
3:30 p.m.: Mayor Roy-Laroche said that U.S. President Barack Obama expressed his
condolences to the people of Lac-Mégantic through the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
4 p.m.: The SQ said that four more bodies have been found, bringing the official death toll to 42.
The coroner's office announced that 19 victims have been identified but their identities will be
made public once families have been notified.
FRIDAY, July 19
10:30 a.m.: TSB investigators offer a briefing updating their investigation. Among the major
revelations are that the quality of the handbrakes engaged on the tanker cars are under
investigation as well as the number applied by the engineer, said Ed Belkaloul, a TSB team
member. Tests are also being conducted by the light crude oil that was spilled to look for the
presence of any other substances. The TSB also flagged two immediate safety concerns to
Transport Canada, which is in charge of regulating the rail industry. First, the rule for the
23
securement of unattended locomotives and second, the securement and surveillance of
unattended trains carrying dangerous goods.
4 p.m.: The number of confirmed victims in the Lac-Mégantic disaster has jumped to 47, the
Sûreté du Québec announced Friday afternoon. A spokesperson for the Quebec coroner's office
said three more victims have been identified, bringing that total to 22. Police now believe 47
people have been killed in the July 6 train derailment and explosion.
August 12, 2013 - FRA issues emergency order on train car
movement
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) August 2 issued an emergency order and safety advisory to help prevent trains operating
on mainline tracks or sidings from moving unintentionally. The FRA’s announcement was made
in response to the July 6, 2013, derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, as it awaits
additional data once the investigation into the crash is complete.
The actions announced today build on the success of FRA’s rigorous safety program, which has
helped reduce train accidents by 43 percent over the last decade, and made 2012 the safest year in
American rail history.
The emergency order is a mandatory directive to the rail industry, and failure to comply will
result in enforcement actions against violating railroads.
“Safety is our top priority,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “While we wait for
the full investigation to conclude, the department is taking steps today to help prevent a similar
incident from occurring in the United States.”
The emergency order outlines measures that all railroads must undertake within the next 30 days:
•No train or vehicles transporting specified hazardous materials can be left unattended on a
mainline track or side track outside a yard or terminal, unless specifically authorized.
•In order to receive authorization to leave a train unattended, railroads must develop and submit
to FRA a process for securing unattended trains transporting hazardous materials, including
locking the locomotive or otherwise disabling it, and reporting among employees to ensure the
correct number of hand brakes are applied.
•Employees who are responsible for securing trains and vehicles transporting such specified
hazardous material must communicate with the train dispatchers the number of hand brakes
applied, the tonnage and length of the train or vehicle, the grade and terrain features of the track,
any relevant weather conditions, and the type of equipment being secured.
24
•Train dispatchers must record the information provided. The dispatcher or other qualified
railroad employee must verify that the securement meets the railroad’s requirements, and they
must verify that the securement meets the railroad’s requirements.
•Railroads must implement rules ensuring that any employee involved in securing a train
participate in daily job briefings prior to the work being performed.
•Railroads must develop procedures to ensure a qualified railroad employee inspects all
equipment that an emergency responder has been on, under or between before the train can be
left unattended.
•Railroads must provide this emergency order to all affected employees.
View the complete emergency order here (http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04719).
“Today’s action builds upon a comprehensive regulatory framework we have had in place for
some time,” said FRA Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. “The safe shipment of all cargo is
paramount and protecting the safety of the American public is fundamental to our enforcement
strategy and we are encouraged by the industry’s willingness to cooperate with this approach
going forward.”
“This is an important step being taken by the FRA as the issue of the consists of crews is now in
the public debate,” said SMART Transportation Division President Mike Futhey. “As a result of
the actions taken by the FRA, coupled with the legislation (http://utu.org/2013/08/02/operatingunions-advance-federal-crew-size-legislation/) entered by U.S. Reps. Michael Michaud (DMaine) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), this provides our organization with the opportunity to
ensure that train operation, as it pertains to the consists of crews, is performed in correlation with
public safety.
In addition to the emergency order, the FRA, together with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), issued a safety advisory detailing a list of recommendations
railroads are expected to follow.
U.S. DOT believes that railroad safety is enhanced through the use of multiple crew members,
and the safety advisory recommends railroads review their crew staffing requirements for
transporting hazardous material and ensure that they are adequate. Other recommendations in the
safety advisory include: conducting system-wide evaluations to identify particular hazards that
may make it more difficult to secure a train or pose other safety risks and to develop procedures
to mitigate those risks. A copy of the safety advisory can be viewed here
(http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04720).
“When PHMSA talks about the transportation of hazardous materials, safety is a prerequisite to
movement,” said PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman. “We are taking this action today
and we will be looking hard at the current rail operating practices for hazardous materials to
ensure the public’s safety.”
25
As FRA continues to evaluate safety procedures following the recent crash, it will convene an
emergency meeting of its Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to consider what additional safety
measures may be required. FRA plans to develop a website that will allow the public to track
industry compliance with the emergency order and safety advisory issued today. FRA has
developed a plan that outlines six major actions that have occurred or will occur to further ensure
that our regulatory response to the Canadian rail accident remains transparent.
Under current DOT regulations, all freight railroads are required to develop and implement risk
assessments and security plans in order to transport any hazardous material, including a plan to
prevent unauthorized access in rail yards, facilities and trains carrying hazardous materials.
Railroads that carry hazardous materials are required to develop and follow a security protocol
while en route; railroad employees are subject to background checks and must complete training.
Training programs and protocols are reviewed and audited by the FRA routinely and generally
designed to be progressive so as the level of risk increases so does the level of security required.
A description of past, present, and proposed FRA actions on this issue can be found here
(http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04721).
July 8, 2013 - Runaway Quebec Train’s Owner Battled Safety Issues
The operator of the runaway train that derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, this
weekend recorded an accident rate far higher than the U.S. average over the past 10 years,
federal data show.
By Alistair MacDonald, Tom Fowler, Jesse Newman, William C. Vantuono/Railway Age.
The operator of the runaway train that derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, this
weekend recorded an accident rate far higher than the U.S. average over the past 10 years, federal
data show.
A train operated by Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway Inc., a subsidiary of U.S. train
operator Rail World Inc., is at the center of a Canadian probe after the train was left unmanned at
26
a crew rest stop and slammed into the small town early Saturday, triggering a deadly explosion
and fire.
Rail World is controlled by a Chicago-area railroad veteran, Edward Burkhardt, who has put
together an empire of small railroads around the world. Mr. Burkhardt, Rail World’s chairman
and chief executive, has spent a lifetime in the industry, earning the respect of many fellow rail
executives.
But the 74-year-old Yale graduate has also faced criticism for a bitter battle with one of his
boards and for championing the controversial use of remote-controlled trains in rail yards and
one-person crews. The deadly Quebec derailment has put MM&A’s safety record under a
microscope.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the country’s main investigator of rail
accidents, doesn’t publicly post safety records of individual operators, but does make that data
available upon request. MM&A didn’t turn up in a basic record search of Canadian accidents. A
spokesman for the safety board said late Monday that a fuller record wasn’t immediately
available.
In the U.S., MM&A had 23 accidents, injuries or other reportable mishaps from 2010 to
2012 and at least two this year, including the derailment and explosion Saturday morning,
according to Federal Railroad Administration data. That number is a small fraction of the 10,000
or more incidents that the nation’s more than 800 railroads recorded each year during that stretch.
But measured by accidents and incidents per million miles traveled, MM&A has a much
higher rate than the national average, federal data show. In 2012, for example, the company’s rate
was 36.1 occurrences per million miles, while the national average was 14.6. Between 2003 and
2011, the company’s rate ranged between 23.4 and 56 incidents per million miles, while the
national average ranged between 15.9 and 19.3.
Comparing safety data among railroads can be difficult because of the varying size of the
railroads, as they operate in different settings and conditions. Also many of the incidents aren’t
the fault of train operators but are caused by contractors or errors on the part of the general
public.
It can also be hard to gauge the severity of the accidents. MM&A has reported one fatality in
recent years, from a 2006 incident where a lumber truck ran into the side of a moving MM&A
train, killing the truck’s driver. Between 2003 and 2012 there were 8,029 total railway-related
deaths.
Mr. Burkhardt said in an interview on Monday that since buying MM&A in 2003, his
company has spent “many millions of dollars” to replace “many miles” of track. He said he has
replaced the entire fleet of 30 locomotives and 1,000 rail cars. The company didn’t immediately
return calls and emails seeking comment on the data.
27
In two interviews in recent days, Mr. Burkhardt said the company is conducting its own
probe of what caused the derailment and is cooperating with authorities. He said his employees
followed all safety precautions.
He also said he was aware that Canadian authorities were questioning individuals outside
the company that he believes may have had something to do with the derailment. Canadian
authorities have opened a criminal investigation into the disaster, but have declined to comment
specifically on who it has contacted in its investigation.
Mr. Burkhardt’s executive career began in the finance department of a train company before
he joined Wisconsin Central Transportation Corp., where he eventually worked his way up to
chief executive. The railway owned or operated rail networks in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., New
Zealand and Australia.
In 1999, Mr. Burkhardt resigned from Wisconsin Central amid boardroom pressure over the
company’s weak share price. That triggered a bitter battle as Mr. Burkhardt, who remained a big
shareholder, exerted pressure on his old company to sell off assets. He eventually made a failed
bid to take over the company.
That same year, he incorporated Rail World, a railway management, consulting and
investment firm that describes itself as specializing in restructurings and privatizations. It
manages rail systems in Colorado, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Poland and Ukraine.
The group bought the Bangor & Aroostook Railroad, about 750 miles of regional rail track
in Maine, Vermont and Canada, in 2003 and renamed it MM&A. In recent years, Mr. Burkhardt
has said he has focused MM&A on shipping crude oil—a business that has filled a hole left by a
decline in the company’s staple paper and forestry cargos.
In 2010, the company persuaded the state of Maine to buy 230 miles of its track there for
$20 million, citing economic hardship. The company has said its finances improved shortly after,
due in part to increase crude traffic to a refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, the same
destination of Saturday’s shipment.
Among railroad veterans, Mr. Burkhardt has a reputation as a hands-on manager who got
involved in all parts of the business.
“He had dirt under his fingernails,” said Chip Paquelet, who met with Mr. Burkhardt
frequently in the 1990s as one of Wisconsin Central’s largest investors. Mr. Paquelet is now at
Milwaukee-based fund manager Skylands Capital LLC.
Ken Buehler, general manager of the North Shore Scenic Railroad, said he once waited at a
station for Mr. Burkhardt to bring railroad executives and customers whom he was introducing to
a new route. When the train pulled up, everyone exited except Mr. Burkhardt.
28
“There’s Mr. Burkhardt, up in the locomotive, having just piloted his train into town,” he said.
But some former workers have criticized Mr. Burkhardt for being a proponent of singleengineer-operated trains and so-called radio-controlled trains, in which trains are controlled
remotely in train yards. Mr. Burkhardt said that in a modern engine there is no role for a second
person and that remote control improves safety in yards.
Such practices are increasingly common in the industry, particularly in Europe and New
Zealand. In North America, though, most train operators still use two staff, including Canada’s
two largest, Canadian National Railway Ltd. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.
–Ben Lefebvre and Ben Dummett contributed to this article.
July 10, 2013 – Death Train in Quebec – A story of rail and fossil
fuel industry greed run amok
By Roger Annis
July 10, 2013–In today’s news coverage, we are beginning to see the full story of the oil-train
disaster that occurred on the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMAR) in Lac Mégantic,
Quebec during the early hours of Saturday, July 6, 2013. Police now say more than 50 people
died.
Here is an outline of the key issues that are emerging from the tragedy and requiring thorough
public debate and action. Most of these issues are elaborated in the compilation of news articles
below, consisting of eleven articles.
1. The wretched safety record of the ‘short haul’ Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway that
was spun off in the mid 1990s from Canadian Pacific Railway, one of Canada’s two main rail
networks. In the U.S., the company’s accident record is several times the industry average. Poor
safety records apply to all the main North American rail carriers. One website alone, titled
Railroaded, looks at CN Rail, Canada’s largest rail carrier and tells a tale of neglect and greed.
2. The collusion of successive federal governments in Canada (Liberal, then Conservative) in
allowing safety conditions on the railways to deteriorate, including a recent, special measure that
allowed the MMAR to operate its (deadly) trains with only one person.
3. The vast increase in oil-by-rail traffic in Canada and the U.S., including that destined to
Canada’s largest oil refinery, Irving Oil in Saint John, New Brunswick, and crossing nearly the
entire continent of North America. (See some detail below that I compiled on the number of
fossil fuel train shipments in Canada.) The MMAR line leading to Saint John through the state of
Maine is notoriously among the most neglected and poorly maintained rail lines in the continent.
29
4. The crucial role that safety committees and other bodies of the unions of rail workers
should be playing in holding governments and federal agencies to account for rail safety.
Likewise for the political party of the unions in Canada, the NDP. Staffing on all of Canada’s
railways has been brutally cut while regulation of operating and safety conditions has been
allowed to deteriorate.
5. The role of provincial and municipal governments in the towns and cities in Canada
through which increasing numbers of trains carrying deadly chemicals, including petroleum
products, are rolling. By all evidence, these levels of government act as little more than doormats
for the fossil fuel industry and facilitators. Most don’t even bother to ask or wonder about what
the rail companies are carrying through their jurisdictions. See my comment to a Vancouver CBC
program, below. The NDP government in Nova Scotia, for example, says it “doesn’t know” what
CN Rail transports in and out of the port of Halifax regularly. Now that the disaster has
happened, a show of concern is being made.
6. The phony “pipelines better than rail for fossil fuel transport” argument. We can expect
this argument to ramp up once the necessary time lapse expires for proponents of this argument
to take the offensive and not appear excessively opportunistic or even ghoulish. See news item
#10 below in which a retired rail worker responds to this argument.
I am not able to easily find news of the impact of the disaster in New Brunswick, where the
MMAR death train was destined. The daily newspaper in Saint John is owned by the Irving
empire and it sits behind a total paywall. An intense public debate and struggle is underway in
that province over plans to build a tar sands pipeline from Alberta to Saint John, via Montreal,
and to throw the doors wide open to natural gas fracking. The federal government and the
provincial governments involved are using all of their powers to speed these projects along.
Railway car loadings in Canada, by commodity, monthly, in thousands, selected categories
Compiled by Roger Annis, from Statistics Canada, Table 404-0002
Product
Jan 2010
Coal
26.1
Gasoline and aviation fuel
3.1
Fuel oils and crude petroleum
5.7
Coke
2.7
Other refined petroleum and coke products 2.8
Gaseous hydrocarbons
6.6
April 2013
35.1
1.7
14.2
3.3
5.9
(same)
Selection of comments to news items posted online
Three comments by readers responding to the short article, ‘The Lac Mégantic tragedy and
American capitalism’
1. The fire department, following protocol, turned the engines off, which caused the air pressure
in the braking system to fall off. There were supposed to be seven hand brakes set (one for every
ten cars)’ but the train was nearly a kilometre long and the driver was exhausted after a long
30
shift, and anyway, the company never checked the safety procedures. Did I mention that the
president of the Railroad is also virulently anti-union and made it a habit of firing anyone who
objected to his policies? The driver is going to take the fall for this.
2. Just to add one further point. The railway President is claiming that it couldn’t have been the
cars that exploded because they were carrying crude, which is relatively inert, and so the
explosion must have been due to some (still to be identified) propane tank cars. This is utterly
untrue. The tank cars carrying crude also contained a light petroleum distillate (essentially
gasoline) to make the heavy stuff flow better when it is pumped in and out of the car. This is
standard operating procedure and the stuff is highly explosive. I want to emphasize that this man
is a perfect representative of Koch-style capitalism.
3. Thanks. The media will ignore the cause of the death of a town; deregulation. Just like a
commercial airliner, a train requires a two man crew at a minimum. A one man crew due to
human error or fatigue will make mistakes that a second person would correct. In this case the
engineer did not set the required number of handbrakes on the train so it would not runaway if
the engine shutdown and the air pressure ran down and released the brakes. Maybe he was too
tired, or the railroad no longer requires it. A dangerous toxic 73 car train was left unattended with
running engines. This is a disaster waiting to happen just to save a few bucks…
Commentary in the Halifax daily Chronicle Herald following an article reporting that the
government of Nova Scotia has no idea of the materials being carried by CN Rail in the
province. CN is the only national railway still operating in the province.
What is wrong with this picture? You go to the hardware store and buy a can of paint, guess
what: you pay an “Enviro” fee added to the HST haul. For what? Meanwhile outside the store,
the railways are moving enough fire power to incinerate multi blocks of any downtown area. I
wonder what “Enviro” fee do they pay? If you said “Zero” you would probably be in the ball
park. Meanwhile, we have useless provincial and federal bureaucrats picking their teeth,
shuffling paper and wondering what is on the menu for tonight’s dinner.
Letter to CBC Radio in Vancouver: ‘Some “facts of life”
about fossil fuels and their transportation’
July 9, 2013
Hello CBC Almanac,
That was a disappointing story yesterday on the oil-train disaster in Quebec. All of your guests
shared an ideological attachment to the fossil fuel economy. How else to explain the support of
your two invited mayors (Kamloops and Clearwater BC) to the Trans Mountain tar sands
pipeline when their communities, not to speak of the Earth’s biosphere, have nothing to gain and
everything to lose from it?
31
Your question to the mayors asking which dangerous train cargoes are running through their
communities was most revealing. The mayor of Clearwater, a town located on the Canadian
Pacific main line through British Columbia, said he “doesn’t know”.
The mayor of Kamloops, through which run both CP and Canadian National main lines, dodged
an answer, albeit noting that “all kinds of dangerous cargo” runs through his city on rail. He
made a strong ideological pitch for dangerous rail cargo, answering the question of which
commodities pass through his city by answering merely that his city’s firefighting crews are
ready and on guard if (when?) a rail disaster strikes.
The nurse who phoned into the program said that movement of fossil fuels and other dangerous
chemicals by rail is a “fact of life” we must accept. No, it isn’t. Similar myths have been pushed
aside by progressive social development. Cholera, yellow fever and malaria used to be “facts of
life” in large parts of North America. Poverty used to condemn many children to starvation or to
death for lack of medical care. Progressive society did something about that, including by
confronting the wealthy minority who resisted change.
Concerning the environment: ozone depletion caused by chemicals emissions, dumping of raw
sewage, unregulated use of deadly chemicals industry, use of the deadly DDT pesticide–all this
and much, much more used to be “facts of daily life” Not anymore (er, not altogether–Vancouver
still dumps raw sewage in the Salish Sea).
The reality is that fossil fuels are a huge money-maker for a tiny minority of Canadian and U.S.
societies. That minority uses a part of its wealth to lobby for and purchase consensus for a
greedy, self-centered and destructive vision of society. This is the most basic “fact of life” under
which we live in Canada. CBC Almanac should be wary in times of disaster of presenting only
one side of the deepening ideological and economic divide in our society over fossil fuel,
climate, safety and other related issues.
A footnote–your host was in error when he insisted during the interview that the MMAR train
company operates its trains with a minimum of two crew members. The federal government has
exempted the railway from having minimum crews of two people. I have seen no mention
anywhere of any crew member of the doomed train at Lac Mégantic other than the engineer.
Sincerely,
Roger Annis
Below are posted the following 11 news items:
1. Mapping the tragedy, Globe and Mail
2. Feds cleared plan to have one engineer on trains, Toronto Star
3. Lac Megantic: MMA Railway’s history of cost-cutting
4. As shock turns to rage, Lac-Mégantic residents hopeful rail won’t return
5. Contradictions amid a shattered town’s anger and despair
6. Tiny town’s environment another disaster casualty
7. Lac-Mégantic: Environmental impact impossible to predict
32
8. The oil trains keep rolling east as Irving seeks out cheaper crude
9. Atlantic Canada needs to reduce oil use, not build pipeline: professor
10. Implications of the rail disaster in Quebec: By rail or pipeline, can tar sands be safely
transported at all?, Counterpunch
11. Cheap-obsessed world is being run by a staff of one, by Heather Mallick, Toronto Star
12. Steelworkers Respond to Lac-Mégantic Tragedy
****************************
1. Mapping the tragedy
By Kim Mackrael, Justin Giovannetti and Sean Silcoff in Lac-Mégantic; and Ivan Semeniuk and
Cynthia McQueen, The Globe and Mail, July 10, 2013
Signs of trouble began in nearby Nantes, Que., a little more than two hours before an unmanned
train carrying 72 carloads of crude oil ran off the tracks and exploded in the busy downtown
district of Lac-Mégantic
11 pm A Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway train pulls into Nantes, Que., according to the
Transportation Safety Board. It is heading east and made up of 72 carloads of crude oil and five
locomotive units, according to MMA. The tank car model, called DOT-111A in the United States
and CTC-111A in Canada, has been criticized because it is prone to puncturing, even in lowspeed collisions. Models 111A are generic tankers that could be used for any liquid, for example
corn oil, TSB manager Ed Belkaloul said, noting that it is not double-hulled or reinforced with
shields. The tank is just one centimetre thick.
11:25 pm The engineer, Tom Harding, secures the train. Mr. Harding puts the handbrakes on
five locomotives and on 10 freight cars, and left one engine running, on the main locomotive at
the front, according to MMA director Yves Bourdon. Mr. Harding leaves the train for the night
and goes to a hotel in Lac-Mégantic, about 10 kilometres southeast. The hotel is L’Eau Berge,
3550, Boul. Stearns, which is two blocks – less than 500 metres – from the blast site. The train is
on the main track.
11:30 pm A citizen calls 911 after seeing a fire on the train. Nantes firefighters call an MMA
dispatcher in Farnham, Que., who asks a track-repair worker to go to the scene, Mr. Bourdon
said. Danielle Veilleux, who lives directly across the street from the train tracks in Nantes,
looked out her window and sees sparks coming from the chimney of the train’s locomotive, and a
large, noxious cloud.
11:50 pm An MMA employee arrives, according to the TSB. Mr. Bourdon said the employee
was a track repair worker who is not familiar with how locomotives work and would not have
known how to start the engine if it had been shut off.
Midnight The train’s engine is shut down and the fire is extinguished. The fire fighters and the
MMA employee leave some time after. The track worker phoned the dispatcher before leaving,
“and then he went home,” Mr. Bourdon says.
33
12:56 am The train starts to move down a 1.2 per cent grade toward Lac-Mégantic, 9.7
kilometres away.
1:14 am The train enters Lac-Mégantic. In its latest briefing on Tuesday, the TSB would not give
the exact speed, but earlier, investigator Donald Ross said it was travelling at 101 kilometres an
hour when it reached the final straightaway into town.
Just before the train hit the city centre: Alex-Catherine Gagnon is getting gas on her way
home from work when she sees the train throttle by. “That’s really dangerous – imagine the
damage it could cause,” she tells a friend.
At the Musi-Café: The popular hangout is packed with revellers celebrating birthdays and
listening to a live music duo. Bernard Théberge steps out onto the patio to have a cigarette. He
hears the train coming.
At the curve, near the Musi-Café: The tank cars jump the rails as the train turns well over its
authorized speed. Nearby, Ms. Gagnon sees a “huge ray of light” in the sky.
On the Musi-Café terrace: Mr. Théberge sees a wall of fire go up, grabs his bike from the patio
railing and starts pedalling. “Smoking saved my life,” he later realizes. Even though they live 300
metres from the scene, Vincent Roy, his wife, their three children and Mr. Roy’s father have to
flee in little more than their underwear as a mushroom cloud towers overhead and debris rains
down.
After the tank cars derail into a jumble: The five locomotives at the front detach from the rest
of the train and continue through the town centre, stopping on the southwest side.
At the L’Eau Berge hotel: The blast wakes up Mr. Harding. He gets dressed, goes to the
accident scene and borrows a railcar mover parked at an industrial rail spur nearby, Mr. Bourdon
said. With the blessing of the firefighters, Mr. Harding approaches nine cars at the tail end of the
train that have not derailed. He unhooks them and pulls them away.
Disaster epicentre: Terry Bell, the fire chief from a nearby Maine town deployed to help fight
the blaze, arrives around 6 a.m. and sees burning rail cars stacked 10 or more high, eerily
resembling “logs just burning.”
2. Feds cleared plan to have one engineer on trains
Ottawa granted rare permission to railway involved in derailment
By Les Whittingdon, Liam Casey, Jessica McDiarmid and Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star,
July 10, 2013
OTTAWA— The rail company whose 73-car train devastated a Quebec town when it derailed
convinced the federal government last year that it could safely operate trains with only one
engineer on board, officials disclosed Tuesday. Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) got
the green light from Transport Canada for reduced staffing in 2012.
34
“They had to meet with Transport Canada and demonstrate to us that they could do it safely,”
said Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety at Transport Canada.
Senior Transport Canada officials acknowledged that MMA is only one of two companies
allowed to operate with only one employee on a train. The other company is Quebec North Shore
and Labrador Railway, officials said.
The government also said it was “very unusual” — though not against the rules — for the
company to leave the train unattended at night on a main rail line, as happened late Friday before
the train got loose and careened into Lac-Mégantic. Much of the village was destroyed when the
cars carrying crude oil derailed and blew up, leaving at least 15 dead and dozens missing in an
area police were calling a crime scene.
Despite the devastation, 1,200 residents were allowed to return to 610 households Tuesday.
On Friday night, the sole engineer on MMA’s ill-fated train parked it in nearby Nantes, Que.,
before heading off to sleep for the night. Sometime early Saturday, the train started moving and
rolled into Lac-Mégantic before exploding.
The exact cause of the accident is under investigation by the federal Transportation Safety Board
(TSB). MMA chairman Ed Burkhardt has said all safety precautions were taken when the train
was in Nantes.
Bourdon was asked if it’s rare for a train to be left unattended, a practice that is said to be taboo
in the U.S. “It’s very unusual in Canada as well,” he told reporters in a briefing in Ottawa. “It’s
not something that you will see a lot. It’s pretty rare that they will leave a train like that.” *
The company and local fire officials have different accounts of the events leading up to the
runaway train.
Burkhardt said firefighters in Nantes shut down a locomotive while putting out the blaze, causing
the brakes to release. He also said the engineer who’d brought the train into Nantes later towed
nine cars from the explosion site in Lac-Mégantic to ensure they didn’t catch fire.
Nantes fire chief Patrick Lambert said it’s standard procedure to shut down a locomotive while
fighting a fire in the cab. But Lac-Mégantic fire chief Denis Lauzon said it was a volunteer
firefighter who works for a company employed to tow cars along the tracks that moved the cars.
Yet the train in Nantes should not have moved, even it had lost air pressure to the brakes, federal
officials said Tuesday. That’s because any train stopped for an extended period must have
sufficient hand brakes applied “so it will not move,” said Bourdon.
He noted there are no rules requiring that locomotive cabs be locked while they are unattended.
The rail cars that exploded and burned have a checkered history.
The TSB said the cars were all low-pressure tank cars, including the DOT-111A. Both the TSB
and the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States noted the car’s steel shell will
35
puncture in a crash because its walls are too thin. They also reported the ends also puncture easily
and valves break in a rollover.
The railway has been involved in several incidents, most recently in June when a 13,000-litre
diesel spill occurred in Frontenac, just east of Lac-Mégantic after a derailment. U.S. authorities
charged the Maine-based company for a 2009 oil spill in Milo, Me., eventually settling on a
$30,000 fine in 2011.
It was also involved in a spill of more than 375 litres of oil in Easton, ME, in 2011. The
company, which operated as Iron Road Railways from 1995 to 2003 before acquisition by Rail
World Inc., was responsible for 11 incidents involving hazardous material since 1998.
* President Ed Burkhardt of the MMAR (who is also New Zealand Consul-General in Chicago)
was widely reported on CBC Radio and Television on July 10 that the practice of leaving idling
trains unattended is standard practice in the railway industry throughout North America. That’s
what former workers at CN and CP also tell me. In her column today (below) from Lac
Mégantic, the Toronto Star’s Rosie Dimanno calls it “standard industry practice” to leave trains
unatttended. –RA
3. Lac Megantic: MMA Railway’s history of cost-cutting
By Julian Sher, Investigative reporter, Toronto Star, July 11, 2013
A freight train with dozens of cars carrying flammable material derails in a quiet rural
community. Sixteen tankers jump the tracks and explode into flames. An entire town is
evacuated. That was not Lac-Mégantic in 2013 but the town of Weyauwega, Wisc., in 1996.
The founder and chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Central railway involved in the crash
was Edward Burkhardt, the same CEO who runs the Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway at the
centre of the Quebec disaster.
Burkhardt was named “Railroader of the Year” in 1999 by an industry magazine, but his costcutting measures over the years as he bought and sold railways and slashed staff have raised
concerns from rail workers and safety experts.
The Wisconsin blaze, caused by large amounts of propane and liquefied petroleum gas in the
derailed train cars, burned for two weeks and it was “sheer luck” there were no deaths or injuries,
said Jim Baehnman, assistant fire chief at the time. “We were concerned about a large explosion
that would wreak havoc,” he told the Star in a phone interview.
About 3,000 people in the community were evacuated for more than three weeks, he said. But he
said the townspeople were grateful for the help and support they received from Burkhardt and his
railway. A faulty switch on the track was blamed for the derailment and the company eventually
made payments to the town and some residents to settle lawsuits.
36
The official inquiry by the American National Transportation Safety Board found that the
“Wisconsin Central management did not ensure that the two employees responsible for
inspecting the track structure were properly trained.”
Just a year later, in November 1997, a handful of tanker cars carrying propane derailed in the
Wisconsin town of Appleton, forcing the brief evacuation of 2,000 residents. Burkhardt
dismissed the reaction as a “tempest in a teapot. “This was a very minor incident,” he told
reporters. “There was never was any potential danger.”
But at the time the local police department said the railroad “highly minimizes what was there.”
“We’re not going to take a chance of people getting hurt or killed,” said police official Ray
Reimann.
Burkhardt sold Wisconsin Central to CN for $1.2 billion in 2001 and began accumulating other
smaller rail companies around the world under his Chicago-based Rail World Inc., “specializing
in privatizations and restructuring” according to its website.
When he took over the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway in 2003, he cut employee wages by
40 per cent according to a company history in the Bangor Daily News.
There were more layoffs and cuts in expenditures in 2006 and again in 2008. The company also
announced plans “to improve safety and efficiency” by cutting its locomotive crews in half,
replacing two workers with a single employee.
That prompted at least one veteran engineer to quit the company in part over his fears for safety.
Jarod Briggs, who had worked on railways since 1998, told the Star he left MM&A in 2007
because he thought leaving only one engineer in charge of a train — as happened in LacMégantic — was too risky.
“If you have two people watching you can catch a mistake,” he said in a phone interview from
his home in Maine. “It was all about cutting, cutting, cutting. It’s just an example of putting
company profits ahead of public safety.”
Briggs, who used to work on the company’s routes into Canada, said he was dismayed but not
entirely surprised by the disaster in Lac Mégantic.
Statistics from the American Federal Railroad Administration show that between 2003 and 2011,
Burkhardt’s MM&A company had an accident rate more than double or triple the national
average for the rail industry.
In April 2011, the railway paid a $30,000 fine after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
found a company repair and maintenance shop, left unattended, leaked oil into the Piscataquis
River in Maine five years earlier.
Read the NTSB report, March 4, 1996
37
4. As shock turns to rage, Lac-Mégantic residents hopeful rail won’t return
By Daniel Bitoni, Justin Giovennetti and Sean Silcoff; The Globe and Mail, July 10, 2013
Like hundreds of other LacMégantic residents who returned to their homes on Tuesday, Maryse
Lemieux found her apartment almost eerily unchanged from the way she left it before an
evacuation order forced residents of her neighbourhood from their homes. “Life returns to normal
for some people,” said Ms. Lemieux, a 49 year-old tax specialist, showing little emotion.
“Paycheques have to go through.”
But as they tried to return some semblance of normalcy to their lives, Ms. Lemieux and others in
this tight-knit community of 6,000 were painfully aware that just a few hundred metres away
were the wreckage of buildings, remains of people they knew and loved, derailed oil tanker cars
and leaked fuel that created a giant hole in the heart of their town on Saturday.
For many, it was matched by a hole in their hearts. After one of the worst Canadian rail disasters
in decades, many here hope the downtown will be rebuilt. But as dull reactions of shock and grief
gave way to public displays of emotion, many said they did not want the track that snakes
through town to be restored along with it.
“The sound is what got me. It was as though the wagons were rolling through my house. I’ll
never forget the rumbling,” said an agitated Richard Bolduc, who returned to his home just
northeast of the blast site and had to be calmed repeatedly by his daughter during an interview on
Tuesday . “We’ve now learned that was our friends and neighbours being incinerated alive. How
could this happen?” he said, fighting back tears. “They left 72 wagons full of dangerous liquid
above our town. Everyone saw that, but no one said anything. That’s enough. I’m standing up.
Someone needs to say this wasn’t right.”
“I think the worst is coming,” said Karine Blanchette, a waitress at Le Musi-Café, the popular
downtown bar obliterated in the fire, where police expect to find the charred remains of 40 to 60
people, including many she knew well. Ms. Blanchette, who decided 25 minutes before the
derailment not to return to the bar hours after her shift ended – she could not find parking close
by and headed home – said most residents had not seen the devastation up close yet, only images
from cameras. “We are not [yet] in downtown,” Ms. Blanchette said in an interview. “We don’t
yet [feel] the energy, the atmosphere” of the destroyed area. “We had an almost perfect place
here. [Now] it’s ash.”
And many who want to rebuild the town, she added, will draw the line at restoring the rail line. “I
hope and I believe this community will be strong…[but] if the railroad [is] still in downtown, the
people will take off, because no one wants to see this railroad again in downtown.”
Pierre Poilievre, parliamentary secretary to federal transport minister Denis Lebel, said in an
interview: “It’s a spectacular tragedy. I can’t imagine what it would be like for residents to
witness this kind of sudden invasion of fire right into the heart of their community.”
The disaster has severed the longstanding relationship between the town and the railway that put
it on the map in the 1800s. It’s even featured in LacMégantic’s motto, “From the railway to the
38
milky way,” a reference to a nearby observatory. Safety concerns about the line, owned and
operated by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, had been mounting in the Eastern Townships
community due to the state and path of the track that was carrying more and more loads of crude
oil to the East Coast from expanding oil fields in the west .
Frustration and hostility were evident elsewhere on Tuesday around town. In the afternoon heat, a
woman walked past a police barricade that still separates hundreds of residents from their homes.
Officers rushed to stop her. Tempers flared as two men began shouting at them.
“There’s no danger down there. You guys are standing there all day and we just want to go
home,” one yelled. “The mayor told us at 8 a.m. we would be able to go home, then at noon we
were told we would be able to go home. We’re angry because you keep getting our hopes up.”
Extra police officers had to be called in to diffuse the situation.
Meanwhile, a handwritten sign by the tracks near the crash site represented the anger of many
people. “You, the train from hell, don’t come back here, you’re not welcome,” it read.
5. Contradictions amid a shattered town’s anger and despair
“I can’t believe (the railway) won’t take the whole blame. They tried to put the responsibility on
the Nantes fire department.” Ginete Cameron, mother of blast victim
By Rosie Dimanno, Toronto Star, July 10, 2013
Lac-Mégantic, QC.— Five locomotives, the front end of a death train, sit almost completely
hidden on a shabby stretch of track nestled within lakeside bush. A person could pull the stakes
out of the rotting and splintered ties with one good yank. Yet this corroded rail line held fast
against the wheels of a runaway train’s forward section — the stubby head of the beast — with
no engineer at the switch, no human manipulating any of the route.
How this severed section of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railroad freight train got to this
location remains a matter of speculation. Officials won’t even reveal when these engines were
found, far beyond the fatal jumping-off spot where the rest of the 72car haul crashed into the soft
underbelly of central Lac-Mégantic.
To get from there to here, these locomotives would have rolled on right through town, clear
around the bend of the bay and then curved back in the opposite direction — about a kilometre in
distance from the full-bore impact epicentre.
There was enough forward thrust momentum from the train’s 11-kilometre downhill slide — the
gradation incline between neighbouring Nantes and LacMégantic — to send this uncoupled hunk
of engines hurtling round that entire hook of shoreline before it slowed down to a full stop,
causing not a shred of damage.
This is the “other” crime scene, according to RCMP officers who’ve been guarding the far-flung
rump of train, squatting in its bucolic arbour, since Sunday. Only on Tuesday did investigators
with the federal Transportation Safety Board catch up with the wayward locomotives as evidence
39
of interest. But of course attention has been focused on the ground zero wreckage of derailed fuel
cars that exploded into successive fireballs shortly after midnight Saturday, a furious inferno of
gutted tanks and igniting fluids and mangled steel — and the helpless humanity caught in that
conflagration. Fifteen victims have been confirmed killed.
Don Ross, lead TSB investigator, confirmed to the Star that these are the almost forgotten
locomotives that somehow became detached from the rest of the train before it barrelled into the
commercial core of the town, flattening dozens of businesses and dwellings, nothing left of the
district except scorched earth and a still smouldering structural carcass. Everywhere an acrid
stench of fuel and char assaults the nostrils.
Quebec authorities estimate that 100,000 litres of the crude oil is now in the river and lake — just
more of the mess that MAA has left behind.
Railway chairman Ed Burkhardt had yet to show his face in this very angry town by Tuesday
evening, though he’s been all over the media interview landscape, cranking out his corporate
version of events — against the backdrop of a company history of 11 incidents involving
hazardous material spills since 1998, most recently a 13,000-litre diesel splatter in Frontenac, just
east of here. Yet Burkhardt, without flinching, has described his company’s safety record as
reasonable.
This is the same Burkhardt who, on Monday, tubthumped a tampering theory — the firm “has
evidence” of it, he insisted — though publicly providing zero such evidence to support his claim.
The sown inference is that something sinister had caused a train that had been left unguarded, as
per standard industry practice these days, to start inching away from its “tie-down” in Nantes at
precisely 12:56 a.m. Saturday, building up lethal speed as it bore down on Lac-Mégantic, where
it derailed at 1:14 a.m., as revealed at a TSB news conference.
The TSB’s Ross told reporters there are no signals along the portion of track from Nantes to LacMégantic that would have alerted rail traffic controllers that a train was on the move. “The rail
traffic controllers would have no idea there was a runaway train.”
Yet somehow part of that train, the locomotives, separated themselves before the collision and
shunted harmlessly through town, whether by engineering design or sheer happenstance.
Ross had no explanation for why the train had been left on the main track in Nantes rather than
parked on a siding, as is more customary.
The controversies and contradictions have been coming fast and furious.
Burkhardt had originally portrayed the train’s engineer as a hero, describing how the man —
who’d clocked off work shortly before midnight and gone to bed at a motel in town — rushed to
the scene and valiantly lassoed a bunch of cars from the wreckage, hauling them back to Nantes
using a track-towing vehicle.
Yet Lac-Mégantic fire chief Denis Lauzon told reporters on Tuesday that it was one of his
volunteer firemen, an individual employed by a company that tows train cars when necessary,
40
who pulled cars away from the explosion, preventing them from catching fire. “They were my
firefighters,” he insisted.
Further confusing events, a police officer told the Star later that, no, it was indeed the train
engineer — Tom Harding — who’d done the deed, after donning a protective fireman suit
borrowed from the volunteer company.
Before going off the comment radar, Burkhardt had essentially accused the Nantes firefighters of
inadvertently teeing up the dreadful derailment. They had responded to an earlier call-out about a
fire aboard one of the locomotives, this after the engineer had finished his shift. Burkhardt said
the responders had fatefully turned off the engine while fighting the mysterious blaze, which
caused the brakes to fail afterwards as the train began nudging away from Nantes. For the brakes
to remain functional, the train must not be completely turned off.
“It’s shutting the engine off that did this,” said Burkhardt.
A hurting community does not want to hear that its own firefighters might have been at fault and
certainly not before all the authorities have concluded their investigations. This is a town that has
long grumbled about the rumbling short-line trains in its midst, how deeply they — and their oft
toxic loads — plunged into the picturesque hamlet.
“We’re mad, everybody’s mad at the train,” said Ginette Cameron, struggling — and failing —
to accept the presumed death of her beautiful 28-year-old daughter Geneviève Breton, last seen
by the young woman’s boyfriend at the annihilated Musi-Café around midnight Friday, gone
there to meet with some friends after getting off work.
“I can’t believe they won’t take the whole blame,” Cameron said of MAA. “They tried to put the
responsibility on the Nantes fire department.”
Loved ones have no proof of death, no names attached yet to the 15 bodies that have been
recovered from the rubble, no identities confirmed.
It could be Geneviève among those sad, precious remains. It could be either of the parents who
left behind three young children. It could be any of three uncles lost by another family.
There’s no knowing, still, just the tiny glimmer of hope that, for Ginette Cameron and others,
refuses to be extinguished — clinging to some alternate possible, some twist of miracle.
Though police who came to take some DNA samples from Cameron’s house on Monday were
severe about taking even that fading hope away. “Madame, that’s it. No hope. They’re all gone.”
6. Tiny town’s environment another disaster casualty
By Eric Andrew-Gee, staff reporter, Toronto Star, with files from The Canadian Press, July 10,
2013
LAC-MÉGANTIC, QUE.— As the mayor urged that “life has to continue” in this disasterstricken town Tuesday, the long, blue bus driving through a quiet residential neighbourhood a
few blocks away suggested just how changed life may be in Lac-Mégantic. The bus contained a
41
Ministry of the Environment chemistry lab and two government scientists taking samples of
material deposited by the explosion of several railway cars containing crude oil Saturday
morning.
One of the scientists, who declined to give her name because she was not authorized to speak to
media, compared the effects of the explosion to a bonfire. “It’s like when you have a fire, and
maybe you add a little gasoline — there’s going to be soot.”
The Environment Ministry did not return repeated calls from the Star but Minister Yves-François
Blanchet told reporters in a Quebec City press conference “we are never going to get to a stage
where it’ll be as if this never happened. There will always be traces of this event, but the river
won’t be irreversibly contaminated.”
Raining soot is just one of the environmental concerns facing many of the 1,200 or so residents
who were allowed to return to 610 households Tuesday after the evacuation order was lifted for
parts of the town. There is still a boil-water advisory in effect for the whole town; widely
circulated photos show gobs of gooey brown oil in the Chaudière River; and many still consider
the lake contaminated, though swimming in it is technically permitted.
The train that derailed at Lac-Mégantic comprised 72 cars, each containing thousands of litres of
crude. On Tuesday, oil continued to visibly course through the river.
Meanwhile, as boats trawled floating booms used in oil clean-ups, Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche
said Tuesday the town’s lake is safe to swim in. “Our young people are currently swimming in
the lake,” she told a press conference. “So swimming is allowed. There is no danger.”
Residents weren’t so sure. Asked if she would swim in the lake, Johanne Côté shook her head
emphatically. “Not so fast,” she said.
When Véronique Roy returned to her house, she said the neighbourhood smelled like burning
tires.
A woman who lived nearby and gave her name only as Julie had a much more troubling welcome
when she returned to her house. Her backyard was littered with oily chunks of blackened wood.
Sticky specks of tar-like material dotted her back porch and her child’s plastic slide. “It’s hell,”
she said.
The oily fallout has prompted Quebec Public Security to advise residents to carefully rinse any
vegetables grown in private gardens.
The town’s boil-water advisory was not directly related to oil released by the derailment, said
public security spokeswoman Christine Savard. Lac-Mégantic’s drinking water doesn’t come
from either the lake or the river, she said, but from an underground well.
7. Lac-Mégantic: Environmental impact impossible to predict
By Adam Kovac, The Gazette [Montreal], July 8, 2013
42
MONTREAL — As the human toll of the explosion in Lac-Mégantic remains uncertain, so too
does the environmental impact. While Urgence Québec has confirmed that both the town’s
namesake lake and the Chaudière River have been contaminated, an assessment of the impact
isn’t possible without knowing what type of oil the 72-car train was carrying to an Irving refinery
in Saint John, N.B., said Steven Guilbeault, co-founder and deputy director of environmental
group Équiterre.
“We suspect that the oil is coming from North Dakota, and that would means it’s shale oil,” he
said. “It’s not the oil people are used to. Beyond that, (it’s a question of whether) it’s light crude
or heavy crude. … Depending on the type of crude oil, the environmental impacts, safety issues,
decontamination issues are very different because of what’s in the oil.”
Shale oil, which is retrieved through a controversial process known as fracking, tends to be light
oil, according to Keith Stewart, an environmental researcher who works with Greenpeace
Canada. But even in that classification, there can be large differences in the chemical makeup,
including the levels of toxic compounds. Light oil also burns quicker than heavy oil. The possible
good news is that light oil also can be easier to remove from waterways, though water pollution
is just one concern.
“If it’s (heavy oil) bitumen, it sinks so you actually have to go down to the riverbed, but if it’s
light crude, it will float and you can just skim it off the top,” Stewart said. “In this case, because
it’s burning, it would depend on what air pollutants are coming out.”
Complicating the cleanup is that permanent damage is best prevented if cleanup operations are
initiated soon after a spill. Because of the fire that has engulfed the town, emergency workers
would have been unable to begin until it was safe to do so, Stewart said.
“Particularly when it’s crude or any petroleum product, there’s a risk of fire and explosions, and
when this stuff burns it releases a lot of toxic chemicals, which have a big impact in the short
term,” he said. “The longer term impacts are effects on water and on soil, which are hard to clean
up, and normally you want to clean them up as soon as possible to reduce damage.”
Aside from the chemical components, the extant of the damage will also depend on how much
oil has seeped into water and soil in the area, Guilbeault noted. “If most of the oil is on land,
(it’s) so obviously much easier to clean up,” he said. “Water makes things much more
complicated,” pointing to the damage done after the 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, a
deepsea oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.
Cleanup efforts will also be determined by the type and scope of the oil spillage, as will any
permanent damage, Stewart said. “Typically what they have to do is try to scoop it up out of the
water and dig up the soil that’s been contaminated and they can never get all of it. It gets into the
ecosystem, it gets into the water, it gets into the soil. Depending on the amount of oil spilled, the
effects can be big, and they can mitigate the damage but not get rid of them entirely.”
Those effects can include contamination of drinking water. Urgence Québec has issued an
advisory to the area to boil water for five minutes, though there is at this time no sign that the
drinking-water source, unlike Lac Mégantic and the Chaudière River, has been contaminated.
43
Concerns over an environmental disaster have followed a recent boom in rail-transported oil that
has taken place over the last five years. Meaghan LaSala is a member of 350 Maine, a group
based in that state that raises awareness for climate change. On June 27, the group blockaded a
railway passing through Fairfield, Me., that, similar to the line passing through Lac-Mégantic,
carried crude oil to the Irving refinery.
“We wanted to call attention to the safety risk that we believe transporting this stuff by rail
posed, which now, devastatingly and tragically, has been shown to be a real concern,” said
LaSala.
“We know that the rails are not properly maintained,” she added. “The pressure to transport this
stuff, because of the oil boom that has been taking place in the last few years, has really exceeded
the infrastructure that exists to transport it safely.”
8. The oil trains keep rolling east as Irving seeks out cheaper crude
By Jeffrey Jones, with files from Reuters, The Globe and Mail, July 10, 2013
CALGARY — Irving Oil Ltd.’s New Brunswick refinery [in Saint John], Canada’s largest, has
increased its ability to source crude by rail over the past 2 1/2 years to take advantage of cheaper
North American supplies, a market shift that’s unlikely to reverse course amid fallout from
Saturday’s Lac-Mégantic freight train disaster.
The North Dakota Bakken crude loaded on the train, which careened down an incline into the
centre of Lac-Mégantic, was headed to Irving’s 300,000-barrel-a-day facility in Saint John, sold
by a subsidiary of Miami, Fla.-based distributor World Fuel Services Corp.
“They are acquiring crude from the Midwest because, even after all the cost considerations,
logistical costs in particular, at least until recently, it’s been less expensive than some of their
traditional waterborne crude feedstocks,” said Michael Ervin, vice-president and director of
consulting at Kent Marketing Services Ltd., which provides research and consulting in the
Canadian refining and marketing business.
The disaster has focused attention on oil-by-rail shipments, which have grown in recent years as
North American pipelines have become congested, and as refiners on the East Coast of the
continent have been squeezed by imported crude prices that have run ahead of those from
Western Canada and those delivered to the U.S. Midwest and Midcontinent.
Refineries throughout the Atlantic basin – eastern North America, Western Europe and the
Caribbean – have been battered in recent years by overcapacity, forcing them to find cheaper
options. Irving, which sells its petroleum products in Atlantic Canada and the U.S. Northeast,
had purchased nearly all its crude from such foreign suppliers as Saudi Arabia, the North Sea and
Newfoundland until the market began to shift in 2011 in favour of the cheaper domestic crudes.
Growth in rail volumes, which has eased some of the congestion on North American pipelines
and paved the way for increased oil production, created a price gap that more than
accommodated the added cost of rail transportation to facilities like Irving Oil’s. At its widest
last winter, the premium on international benchmark Brent oil was more than $23 a barrel to
44
North American marker West Texas Intermediate as Canadian and U.S. supplies accumulated in
the U.S. Midwest, particularly in Cushing, Okla., a storage hub.
Still, that spread has since narrowed considerably – on Tuesday it was $4.28 a barrel, meaning
that any change in crude supply sourcing by Irving or any other East Coast refineries is more
likely to be driven by prices than reactions to last week’s catastrophic derailment.
In March, former Irving Oil president Mike Ashar told a conference in Texas that the refinery
“had access to 200,000 barrels a day of rail-delivered crude,” up from just 3,000 at the start of
2011. “As far as I know, it’s the largest at a refinery in North America,” Mr. Ashar said,
according to the energy news service Argus Media.
In addition, family-owned Irving signed a multi-year deal with Houston-based Buckeye Partners
LP late last year to use its crude oil storage and terminal facilities at Albany, N.Y. Buckeye
modified its terminal to handle crude oil and ethanol trains with capacity of more than 135,000
barrels a day.
The recently squeezed price differential may give Irving pause before expanding its rail delivery
capability much more, however, Mr. Ervin said.
An Irving Oil spokesperson did not return calls seeking details on the refinery’s crude supply.
9. Atlantic Canada needs to reduce oil use, not build pipeline: professor
By Kevin Bissett, The Canadian Press July 9, 2013
FREDERICTON – The derailment in Quebec of a train carrying crude destined for the Irving Oil
refinery in New Brunswick is raising questions about the security of Atlantic Canada’s energy
supply, with one expert saying it highlights the need to reduce the region’s reliance on oil.
Larry Hughes, a professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax who studies energy issues, said he
is concerned the disaster in Lac-Megantic, Que., will be used to help advance a proposal to ship
oil through a pipeline from Alberta to the refinery in Saint John, N.B., on the premise that would
be safer.
“There have been a spate of accidents moving oil products by rail and there have been pipeline
accidents too,” Hughes said Monday. “Rather that bringing (oil) here for the longer term, how
can we get off of it? That’s what we need to be asking ourselves.”
Hughes said if plans for a west-to-east pipeline were to forge ahead, it would tie the region’s
energy supply to a 50-year investment that could mute environmental concerns. “If we had a
pipeline, the argument would be we have to continue using the oil because we have a pipeline
and need to keep it full in order to ensure someone’s rate of return,” he said.
New Brunswick Premier David Alward has promoted the pipeline proposal, saying it would
create jobs in a region that sorely needs them. Alward declined to comment Monday on the
merits of shipping oil via pipelines versus rail. “There will be an appropriate time and place to
have all those discussions,” he said in a statement. “But right now our thoughts and prayers and
any support we can offer are with the people of Lac-Megantic and province of Quebec.”
45
Hughes said it would make more sense to have tanker ships bring oil to the Irving Oil refinery
from Quebec, rather than building a 1,400-kilometre extension into Saint John as TransCanada
Corp. (TSX:TRP) is considering, because that would be safer as they are required to have double
hulls.
It would also give the region more flexibility to diversify its energy supply, especially as the use
of alternative resources such as solar, wind and biofuels increase over the next 20 years, he said.
“Why invest in a pipeline when we could be investing longer term for various types of
renewables to help us reduce our reliance on oil for things such as heating and transportation?”
Hughes said.
Irving Oil has boosted its use of rail cars in recent years to import western crude. Mike Ashar,
who was president of the company in December while hosting a tour of the Saint John refinery,
said at the time it wanted to buy more oil from Alberta and would like to see the pipeline project
become a reality.
10. Implications of the rail disaster in Quebec: By rail or pipeline, can tar sands be safely
transported at all?
By Jonathan Flanders, Counterpunch, July 8, 2013
My last years working as a railroad machinist were spent working on locomotive air brakes.
In most situations, the system is fail safe. I always chuckle when I see a movie where a train
separates, as it did in the latest James Bond thriller, and both ends of the train keep going. This is
close to impossible in real life, the air brake system automatically will go into emergency braking
if there is a break.
When a locomotive engineer applies the brakes to a train, he or she makes a “reduction” of the
equalizing or control air, which then triggers a brake application. This reduction of equalizing air,
in the case of a break is the key to emergency brake applications. There is much more to the
system, of course as it was refined over time, but it’s all based on this concept.
What we know so far in Quebec is that the oil train was parked on a grade. The brakes were set
by the crew, at some point the brakes came off, and the train rolled into the little town of LacMégantic, derailed and exploded, leaving many dead and the town devastated.
Why would the brakes come off? After all, I seriously question that this was the first train parked
on this grade, it must have been a routine practice for a crew, they must have felt that this was not
a big risk. And most of the time it probably wasn’t.
But where you have compressed air running through valves and pipes you have the possibility of
leaks. On my job, the locomotive generally was considered OK for service if it had a leak of less
than three pounds per minute. As I remember, the passing score for an entire train, which is
tested before departure, is eight pounds per minute. Hopefully, of course, it will be much
less than that. When I was working, I always tried to achieve no leaks on the locomotive itself
before it left the shop.
46
An entire train, however, is another matter. You have train line hoses linked between every car,
and piping from the small reservoir on each car, all potential leak sites. Given this, I have to
wonder why it was routine to park a heavy oil train on a grade. You just have to do some simple
math to figure out how long it would take for a leaking pipe to drain the air from the system. Air
is stored in the locomotive reservoirs at 130 psi, the train line is 90 psi. And remember, you are
allowed 3 lbs per minute for the locomotive and a bit more for the train.
So this train, part of the massively growing “pipeline on rails”, which takes advantage of the lack
of sufficient pipeline capacity, was pulling more than 70 cars, loaded with crude oil. If it was
only crude oil, you would have to wonder why the explosion? Crude is more like tar than the
gasoline we put in our cars. In order to ship crude by rail or pipeline however, it has to be diluted
for it to flow easily. Dilbit, which I guess must be short hand for “diluted bitumen”, is the
standard substance used. According to Wikipedia, dilbit is made up of bitumen diluted with
“natural gas condensate.” And guess what, this condensate is sometimes called “natural
gasoline.” Gasoline? No wonder the town of Lac-Megantic blew up.
So there you have it, whether its being transported by the “pipeline on rails” or the Keystone
pipeline, you have not only the possibility of spills, but also massive explosions as in Quebec.
The debate needs to move from mode of transport to whether this tar sands muck can be safely
transported at all.
Jonathan Flanders spent 25 years as a Railroad Machinist, member and past President of IAM
1145. Steering committee member of Railroad Workers United. Retired. He can be reached at:
[email protected].
11. Cheap-obsessed world is being run by a staff of one
By Heather Mallick columnist, Toronto Star, July 10, 2013
The news that the runaway train of Lac-Mégantic was staffed by one engineer is stunning to us,
but an old story to the creakingly untended ill-regarded North American rail industry. The Ballad
of the Lone Engineer? Downbound Train? The song writes itself.
Yes, Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway had but one man in charge of a train full of crude oil
from North Dakota, a train that had run through Toronto, a man who parked the train when his
shift ended and went off to sleep in a hotel.
That’s the trouble with a staff of one. At some point they need to rest their heads on a pillow. At
this point I’m wondering why he didn’t sleep on a berth the way long-distance truckers do. But
this misses the main point, which is that in Canada, as much as the U.S., we worship the god of
cheap.
A staff of one is dirt cheap. We want cheap oil, we won’t pay higher taxes for government
regulation, we fear the loss of our own jobs, we trade ready cash for safety, and what it all boils
down to is an engineer climbing down alone from a train of thin-skinned tankers holding oil that
was salvation for a company desperate for freight after the economic collapse reduced demand
for the lumber it usually hauled.
47
This fascinates me. I am always desperate to point out the dollar stamped on our everyday
landscape. You should care about finance, you should care about the destruction being wrought
in the EU by the ideology of austerity wrought by clueless economists. For someday it will come
down to you.
Here is proof: You were never much interested in Wall Street, in decisions made in Ottawa, even
in voting. But if you were told that the 2008 crash — built out of deregulation and pure greed —
would push over domino after domino until one day you would read about fellow Canadians
being burned to death, you would care more.
I will say it again. The god of cheap is the wrong god to worship.
“Movement of hazardous material by rail not only can be, but is being handled safely in the vast
majority of instances,” droned CN spokesman Mark Hallman, who decades ago was a journalist.
But safety isn’t about the irrelevant majority, it’s about guarding against the tiny number of
moments when towns are levelled. Ottawa is cutting funding for Transport Canada by nearly a
third.
Most jobs aren’t done well solo. It’s unsafe for clerks to work the night shift alone. Pilots, train
engineers, air traffic controllers, care home staff and tree planters should work in teams, as
surgeons do. But the trend is to pare teams to the minimum to save money on salaries.
Many people work alone now, including those who shouldn’t. I bought a Miele dishwasher for its
alleged excellence but was appalled to see it hauled and installed by one man, which is how
Miele saves money.
As nursing staff is pared down, you need a relative to speak up for you in hospital. Rural airports
are neglected. Airlines cut flight staff, which works until a crash and then passengers escape
while hauling their carry-on baggage, as happened in the San Francisco catastrophe. One worker
is not enough.
“If we’d had five guys on that train, I think the results would have been the same,” the owner of
Rail World, the holding company that owns the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic railway, told the
Globe and Mail. Really? Why? Presumably they wouldn’t all have left the five-locomotive, 72car train at the same time, would have been there to ensure the brakes were on and functioning.
Every stage of profit is shaved to the bone now in our effort to compete with a Chinese level of
efficiency. But Canada doesn’t have a peasant army moving to cities to work for dimes and live
in dormitories. If we did, worshipping the god of cheap — shopping at Walmart, working alone,
expecting subways without paying the taxes to fund them, living a Mayor Ford way of life —
would be plausible. Instead we clean up the muck. It’s composed of oil, human bodies and black
rubble. The god of cheap accepts our offerings and rejoices.
12. Steelworkers Respond to Lac-Mégantic Tragedy
Press release, July 9, 2013
MONTREAL, July 9, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ – In the aftermath of the train fire in Nantes and the
devastating explosion in Lac-Mégantic, the United Steelworkers (USW), which represents 75
48
Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway employees, extends its thoughts and sympathies to the
families and friends of victims of this tragedy.
We also wish to affirm our support to our members in USW Local 1976 who are enduring a
difficult and painful situation, as well as our fellow USW members who live and work in LacMégantic and the surrounding area.
For the benefit of ongoing investigations by the Transportation Safety Board and the Sureté du
Québec, the USW will not be commenting publicly on the circumstances of the tragic events in
Nantes and Lac-Mégantic. Union representatives continue to be available to all appropriate
authorities to assist in the investigations.
The 75 members of USW Local 1976 who work for Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway have
been represented by our union since 2000, prior to the purchase of the railway operations by the
current owner Rail World Inc. in 2003. Since that time, three collective agreements have been
negotiated between the union and the company, including the existing contract that expires in
2014.
The rail lines currently operated by the MMAR were previously owned by CP Rail, into the late
1990s. The sale by CP was part of the arrival of so-called “short lines” in Canada, some of which
consist of rail operations that were abandoned by large rail companies. These short-line
operations do not have the levels of resources that large corporations such as CN and CP Rail
have to maintain rail lines.
Consequently, the United Steelworkers believes the federal government must tighten its
regulatory measures with respect to operating permits and the safety and monitoring of rail
transportation of hazardous products.
“Over the years the federal government has deregulated rail transport as well as the aviation
industry,” said Daniel Roy, United Steelworkers’ Quebec Director.
“It is always dangerous to turn over the management and oversight of public interests to
corporations while limiting or reducing the role of government. The federal government must
reconsider its role and resume greater responsibility for the regulation and safety of rail
transport,” Roy said.
CONTACT: Jocelyn Desjardins 514-604-6273 [email protected]
July 11, 2013 - Despite accident, Burkhardt still believes in
one-person crews
Published: July 11, 2013
LAC-MÉGANTIC, Quebec – Ed Burkhardt, the head of Rail World Inc., parent company of the
Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, says despite the derailment of a crude oil train last weekend
49
in Lac-Mégantic, and the high death toll from the accident, he still believes in allowing trains to
operate with one-person crews.
The railroad is one of two in Canada with permission from Transport Canada to operate with a
one-person crew. The other railroad is the Quebec North Shore & Labrador. On Friday night, the
solo engineer on a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic train, parked the train in Nantes, Que., and went
to a hotel. Later in the night, the train rolled downhill into Lac-Mégantic, derailed and triggered a
fire in the middle of that town. The confirmed death count as of Thursday morning is 20, with
dozens more missing but presumed dead.
At a news conference in Lac-Mégantic on Wednesday, Canadian reporters asked Burkhardt if
having only a one-man crew on the train contributed to the disaster. Burkhardt defended the
railroad's policy, while blaming the engineer, who is now in police custody, for failing to set
enough hand brakes on the train. “We actually think that one-man crews are safer than two-man
crews because there’s less exposure for employee injury and less distraction [for operators]” he
tells the Toronto Globe & Mail.
Canadian agencies do not interfere with railroads' right to use one-man crews if they demonstrate
that one person can handle all the required operating tasks on a train. “Our rules and regulations
do not stipulate one, two or three members on a crew,” Transport Canada’s director general of rail
safety, Luc Bourdon, told reporters this week.
“In the case of one-man operation, a railway will have to provide to Transport Canada the
conditions which they will respect in order to do it safely. And if it’s according to our regulatory
regime, we’ve got no issues with that. And we’re monitoring that on a regular basis,” he says.
Similar rules apply in the United States, where railroad regulations lack any ban on one-man
crews, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. “However, in order to fully comply with
existing FRA regulations, the vast majority of U.S. rail companies do not use one-person crews,”
Kevin Thompson, a FRA associate administrator, says in a statement.
The commandant of the Quebec Police says his agency will likely seek “criminal negligence
causing death” charges for persons responsible for the Lac-Mégantic incident.
July 12, 2013 - Quebec train disaster investigation will 'change the
industry'
LAC-MEGANTIC, Quebec (Reuters) - The investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of
Canada into Saturday's deadly train derailment that demolished the heart of the Quebec town of
Lac-Megantic is likely to change the rail business, TSB investigator Glen Pilon said on Friday. "I
am confident that this will be an investigation that changes the industry," Pilon told Reuters by
telephone. He said policy recommendations would likely cover the braking system, tank
survivability and possibly crew-size requirements. "These are the main areas we are looking at,"
50
he said.
(Reporting by Richard Valdmanis; Writing by Randall Palmer; Editing by
Vicki Allen)
July 12, 2013 - Before Blast, Hauling Oil Revived a Tiny Railroad
By IAN AUSTEN JULY 12, 2013
OTTAWA — The increased shipment of oil by train in North America has revived investor
interest in the once sleepy rail industry. On one end of the industry there is Warren E. Buffett,
who invested $44 billon to control Burlington Northern Santa Fe, or William A. Ackman, the
activist investor who won a bitter proxy fight for control of the 14,700-mile Canadian Pacific
railroad, a company with a market capitalization of $21 billion.
On the other end are the little guys like Edward A. Burkhardt, the chief executive and majority
owner of Rail World Inc. That is the company whose runaway train of oil tankers exploded last
week in the town of Lac Mégantic, Quebec, killing 28, leaving 22 people missing and presumed
dead, and the vacation town’s core incinerated.
The Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway runs on 510 miles of track, including a former section
of the Canadian Pacific Railway that runs through Lac Mégantic. As large railways in Canada
and the United States have divested themselves of low traffic routes, small players like Mr.
Burkhardt have swept in with the hope that they can be turn the lines into profit makers.
Mr. Burkhardt, an American who turns 75 this month, bought the rail lines that form the
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway in 2003 after a long career running railroads in the United
States. The 21 locomotives that make up the railway’s secondhand fleet provide a colorful
cavalcade with many showing the faded paint schemes from previous owners.
Rail World also owns the 13-mile San Luis Central Railroad in Colorado, where it mostly hauls
potatoes and grain. It runs trains in Estonia and owns two small railways in Poland, which rely on
secondhand Moroccan locomotives built in the 1970s. One of the railways is based in Oswiecim,
better known by its World War II German name of Auschwitz.
Mr. Burkhardt did not respond to requests for an interview. Calls to the head office in Rosemont,
Ill., are met with this recorded message: “Hello, you’ve reached the offices for Rail World and
the New Zealand Consulate.”
The incongruous combination is the legacy of Mr. Burkhardt’s global ambitions and dates to
when he helped privatize New Zealand’s national rail network.
Mr. Burkhardt began his career with the Chicago and North Western Railway, a large carrier that
eventually disappeared through mergers. But it was the purchase of a network of tracks from
Canadian Pacific to form the Wisconsin Central in 1987 that made him something of a legend in
the railroad business. He was a man who, as a cover headline on Trains magazine put it in 2007,
ran railroads that “defied adversity.”
The Wisconsin Central, by several accounts, became a success by offering customers better
service than Canadian Pacific. But Mr. Burkhardt had global ambitions, which included the
privatization in New Zealand and running several freight lines in Britain. Shareholders thought
51
he had overreached and he was eventually ousted in 1999.
With Rail World, founded that year, Mr. Burkhardt made an unsuccessful effort to buy back the
Wisconsin Central.
Then Mr. Burkhardt landed the bankrupt Bangor and Aroostook Railroad in 2003, renaming it the
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway. It was not an obvious prize. A combination of a long
established railroad in Maine and pieces of former Canadian Pacific lines in Quebec, the Bangor
and Aroostook’s primary business had once been shipping potatoes in distinctive red, white and
blue freight cars emblazoned with the words “State of Maine Products.”
But the forestry and paper-related industries that remained along the M.M.& A.’s tracks were in
decline. In 2010, Mr. Burkhardt sold 223 miles of track he had threatened to close down to the
state of Maine for $20 million.
The rail business was not great, but the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota changed all that. Just
over a year ago, Irving Oil contracted with the M.M.& A. to carry Bakken crude to its refinery in
Saint John, New Brunswick. That deal revived the railway.
The train that devastated Lac Mégantic, now known in Quebec as the “ghost train,” started out in
the Bakken oil fields. It was loaded with crude oil that then traveled across the Continent on
Canadian Pacific rails to Montreal, the line’s Eastern terminus.
Mr. Burkhardt’s M.M.& A. took it from there.
Despite the oil deal, the railroad is not a financial success. The Caisse de dépôt et placement du
Québec, the province’s pension fund, invested $7 million for a 12.8 percent stake in 2003. This
week it disclosed that even before the disaster, that investment had been written down to a token
$1,000 value.
What happened in the village of 6,000 last week is not yet clear to accident investigators. Mr.
Burkhardt initially blamed “tampering” with the train’s locomotives for the derailment before
pointing a finger at volunteer firefighters who put out a fire in one of the locomotives.
As residents of Lac Mégantic jeered in the background during the news conference on
Wednesday, Mr. Burkhardt shifted blame again, this time to the engineer who parked the train for
the night uphill from the village. Although the railway is not involved in the investigation and he
offered little detail, Mr. Burkhardt said he thought the engineer had ignored safety laws and did
not properly secure the train’s hand brakes.
Mr. Burkhardt’s prolonged absence from the disaster scene had been widely condemned by
politicians and residents. As he was driven to the village, the cable news channel of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation updated viewers about Mr. Burkhardt’s travel progress on the roughly
two-hour drive. The news conference opened with him lecturing reporters about their manners.
As the news conference began to fall apart on Wednesday, and before he was whisked away from
reporters by police for several hours of questioning, Mr. Burkhardt was asked if his tiny railroad’s
giant disaster would be its financial ruin. Smiling, he said, “Everyone in the world that has a
business of any size has occasions when they think they might go bankrupt.”
Mr. Burkhardt mixed his “abject apology” with jokes. When pressed repeatedly by a reporter
about his personal worth in the wake of the accident, he eventually said, “A whole lot less than I
52
was Saturday.”
July 12, 2013 - Canada rail crash stirs debate over Keystone XL
pipeline delay
By Carol J. Williams
As Canadian investigators sift through the gruesome wreckage of an oil train derailment and
explosion in Lac Megantic, Quebec, the deadly crash has intensified a debate among
environmentalists and energy-independence advocates as to whether it is safer to ship oil by rail
or by pipeline.
The circuitous route the oil involved in the accident was taking to its ultimate destination – U.S.
consumers – also illustrates the conundrum faced by North American producers eager to get their
crude oil to a far-flung network of specialized refineries within easy onward delivery range of the
intended markets.
All but one of 73 rail tanker cars on the runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway train that
crashed Saturday were carrying crude oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota to a refinery in
St. John, New Brunswick, calibrated to handle that particular type of crude.
The train had been left unattended during a stop six miles from the crash site and had been
boarded by firefighters summoned to extinguish an onboard blaze five minutes after the sole
engineer set the brakes and left it unmanned. Authorities said this week that at least 50 people
were presumed dead in the crash and explosions.
Whether Canada’s deadliest train disaster in more than a century was the result of human error or
equipment failure remains to be determined. But the accident has supporters of the stalled
Keystone XL pipeline project brandishing statistics that purport to show a superior safety record
of pumped oil shipment over that carried by rail.
Railway carriage of oil in North America has more than doubled in the last year as plans for the
1,700-mile Alberta-to-Texas pipeline have hit a wall of environmental protest and doubt about
the predicted economic boon for the U.S. economy.
U.S. government approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is on hold after the Environmental
Protection Agency in April took issue with a State Department review that concluded that the tarlike oil from the Alberta sands that would be transported by the pipeline emits 17% more
greenhouse gases than conventional crude oil. The EPA has insisted that the excess tar sands
emissions, from extraction to automobile exhaust, would be much more than 17%.
Keystone is a priority project for Canada and the pipeline developers, TransCanada Corp.,
because only 4% of the country’s 170 billion barrels of proven reserves of oil sands crude has
been developed. All but 1.5% of what little is extracted is sold to the United States at a
considerable discount from global prices. Canada wants the pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast
refineries so it can ship more of its production to more lucrative foreign markets.
As the pipeline project idles, crude oil extractors have turned increasingly to the railroads to get
their product to a complex network of North American refineries. Trains hauled a record 97,000-
53
plus tankers of crude oil in the first quarter of this year, up 166% from the same period in 2012
and nine times what was delivered by rail five years ago, the Assn. of American Railroads
reports.
What the Lac Megantic disaster demonstrates, Keystone backers were quick to claim, is that the
rapidly expanding rail carriage poses more risk to human life and the environment than would the
pipeline. And without Keystone, designed to handle 830,000 barrels a day, rail shipment of
Canadian crude will continue to expand at breakneck speed to tap the Alberta bounty while
global oil prices are riding high, industry analysts forecast.
Trains haul oil tankers through U.S. towns and cities every day and the Quebec disaster shows
“why pipelines are safer and environmental opposition to a pipeline from Canada is misguided,”
Investors’ Business Daily declared in an editorial Tuesday.
"The evidence is so overwhelming that railroads are far less safe than pipelines," the newspaper,
which has backed the Keystone project, quoted Brookings Institution energy security initiative
director Charles Ebinger as saying.
One day after the Quebec disaster, Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the conservative Manhattan Institute
for Policy Research, penned a commentary for Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper reiterating
the findings of her June study that oil spills are twice as frequent from trains as from pipelines.
“It is time to speed up the approval of new pipeline construction in North America,” wrote
Furchtgott-Roth. “Pipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas, and we need
more of them, without delay.”
The Assn. of American Railways concedes that trains spill 2.7 times more oil than pipelines. But
the industry group and other sources note that pipeline accidents tend to be bigger and more
costly in terms of cleanup and environmental damage than rail mishaps.
“All methods of transporting oil have risks. And there are lots of different kinds of accidents –
this train didn’t have its brakes on and rolled into a town, which is very different from an oil spill
into a wildlife refuge. How you compare those things is not simple,” Jonathan Koomey, a
research fellow at Stanford University’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, said
in an interview.
Pipelines are cheaper to build and operate than are new railroad networks, and pipeline accidents
are less frequent, Koomey said. But he sees the environmentalist opposition to Keystone as more
of a tactical campaign in the fight against global warming than a strict risk and cost analysis.
Stalling the pipeline forces oil extractors to look to rail for more capacity, and the expense and
time involved to achieve that expansion puts pressure on the industry to reduce extraction, and by
extension the higher emissions of greenhouse gases from the tar sands crude.
“The argument comes from an understanding that there is a fixed amount of carbon that we can
emit and stay under the two degrees of warming,” Koomey said. He was referring to what
scientists have calculated as the increase in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere that would
cause irreparable damage from melting Arctic ice and flooding lowlands.
"For the most part, transportation by rail is safe," Michael Whatley, executive vice president of
the industry-backed and pro-Keystone Consumer Energy Alliance, said in an interview with the
Energy Wire news service. Speaking of the Lac Megantic disaster, he said, "We don't need an
54
overreaction that's going to restrict rail access. ... I don't want to punch the safety record of rails,
because they've got a great record, but pipelines are safest."
July 11, 2013 - Quebec's Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster not just
tragedy, but corporate crime
At the root of the explosion is deregulation and an energy rush driving companies to take ever
greater risks
Martin Lukacs Thursday 11 July 2013 13.34 EDT
Five days after a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, the
rural town resembles a scene of desolation. Its downtown is a charred sacrifice zone. 50 people
are likely dead, making the train's toll one of the worst disasters in recent Canadian history.
In the explosion's aftermath, politicians and media pundits have wagged their finger about the
indecency of "politicising" the event, of grappling with deeper explanations. We can mourn, but
not scrutinise. In April, prime minister Stephen Harper even coined an awkward expression –
"committing sociology" – to deride the search for root causes about horrifying events, in the
wake of an unrelated, alleged bombing attempt.
But to simply call the Lac-Mégantic explosion a "tragedy" and to stop there, is to make it seem
like an accident that occurred solely because of human error or technical oversight. It risks
missing how we might assign broader culpability. And we owe it to the people who died to
understand the reasons why such a disaster occurred, and how it might be prevented in the future.
So here's my bit of unwelcome sociology: the explosion in Lac-Mégantic is not merely a tragedy.
It is a corporate crime scene.
The deeper evidence about this event won't be found in the train's black box, or by questioning
the one engineer who left the train before it loosened and careened unmanned into the heart of
this tiny town. For that you'll have to look at how Lac-Mégantic was hit by a perfect storm of
greed, deregulation and an extreme energy rush driving companies to ever greater gambles with
the environment and human life.
The crude carried on the rail-line of US-based company Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway –
"fracked" shale oil from North Dakota – would not have passed through Lac-Mégantic five years
ago. That's because it's part of a boom in dirty, unconventional energy, as fossil fuel companies
seek to supplant the depletion of easy oil and gas with new sources – sources that are harder to
find, nastier to extract, and more complicated to ship.
Like the Alberta tar sands, or the shale deposits of the United States, these energy sources are so
destructive and carbon-intensive that leading scientists have made a straightforward judgment: to
avert runaway climate change, they need to be kept in the ground. It's a sad irony that Quebec is
one of the few places to currently ban the "fracking" used to extract the Dakotan oil that
devastated Lac-Mégantic.
55
But fossil fuel companies, spurred by record profits, have deployed a full-spectrum strategy to
exploit and carry this oil to market. That's one of the reasons for a massive, reckless increase in
the amount of oil shipped by rail. In 2009, companies shipped a mere 500 carloads of crude oil
by rail in Canada; this year, it will be 140,000.
Oil-by-rail has also proved a form of insurance against companies' worst nightmare: a
burgeoning, continent-wide movement to block pipelines from the Alberta tar sands. A group of
Canadian businessmen is pursuing the construction of a 2,400-kilometre rail line that could ship
5m barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to Alaska. Companies are also trucking it and
entertaining the idea of barging it down waterways. This is the creed of the new energy era: by
any means necessary.
The recklessness of these corporations is no accident. Under the reign of neoliberalism over the
last 30 years, governments in Canada and elsewhere have freed them from environmental, labour
and safety standards and oversight, while opening up increasingly more of the public sphere for
private profit-seeking.
The railway in Canada has hardly been exempt. Up until the mid 1980s, the industry, publiclyrun, was under serious regulation. By the time the Thatcherite Progressive Conservative prime
minister Brian Mulroney was finished with his reforms, it was deregulated, and companies had
rewritten the safety rules. That launched an era of cost-cutting, massive lay-offs, and speed-ups
on the job, and eventually, the full privatization of companies and rail-lines.
The Liberal government completed the job by turning over what regulation remained to rail
companies themselves. A report issued in 2007 by a safety group spelled out the result: Canada's
rail system was a disaster in the waiting.
It's little wonder, then, that today's oil and rail barons have cut corners with ease. They've been
using old rail cars to ship oil, despite the fact that regulators warned the federal government they
were unsafe, as far back as 20 years ago. A more recent report by a federal agency reminded the
government that the cars could be "subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous
materials." All were ignored. To top it off, the federal government gave the go-ahead last year to
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway to operate with just one engineer aboard their trains.
All of which means it will not suffice to find out if a brake malfunctioned the night of the
disaster, or limit ourselves to pointing at the failings of lax regulation. The debate should be
about the need for another kind of brake, over the mad pursuit of infinite resources, and the
unshackling of reckless corporations, on a finite and fragile planet.
Canada's political class will not be pleased by the lessons to be drawn. The government needs to
get back into the business of heavily regulating corporations – through incentives, through taxes,
and through sanctions. And this will involve not just grappling with the dangers of the transport
of oil – which will remain unsafe, whether by rail or by pipeline – but starting a rapid transition
away from an extreme energy economy entirely. That will not happen as the result of any
government inquiry, but a noisy social movement that puts it on the public agenda.
That's why the most fitting response to Lac-Mégantic actually happened two weeks ago, by US
residents 100 miles across the border in Fairfield, Maine. They were arrested blockading a train
56
carrying the same fracked oil from the same oilfields of Northern Dakota, to the same refinery in
New Brunswick, Canada. Their message was about ending our reliance on oil, not soon but now.
For those who never knew the victims of Lac-Mégantic, there could be no better way to honour
them.
July 23, 2013 - Transport Canada introduces emergency rules for
train safety
By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News, July 23, 2013
OTTAWA – Transport Canada announced six emergency rail safety rules Tuesday in response to
the Lac-Megantic runaway train disaster, but its senior officials declined to answer direct
questions about whether it had failed in previous years to respond to weaknesses highlighted both
in internal and external audits.
In a news conference responding to recommendations from Transportation Safety Board of
Canada investigators last Friday, the department said the new rules would be effective
immediately and in place for about six months, leading to permanent rule changes for the
industry.
The new measures ban one-person crews for locomotives carrying train cars with dangerous
goods. They also place new restrictions on unattended trains on main tracks, as well as defining
minimum requirements for their braking systems.
“The disaster brought to light several industry practices which have caused some concern,”
Gerard McDonald, assistant deputy minister responsible for safety and security at Transport
Canada, said in a conference call with reporters.
“Given that and with an abundance of precaution, we thought it would be prudent to implement
these measures now.”
The disaster, which claimed dozens of lives and destroyed multiple buildings, also resulted in the
release of about 5.7 million litres of oil into the air, water and soil around the small Quebec town,
provincial officials estimated this week, making it one of the largest environmental disasters in
North American history.
But Transport Canada officials ended the news conference when reporters started asking whether
the department failed to respond to previous warnings about oversight weaknesses, raised in an
audit by the federal environment watchdog in 2011 and an internal audit done five years earlier.
McDonald suggested that the 2011 audit, which recommended sweeping changes and a new risk
management system in the department’s oversight of the transportation of dangerous goods, was
not related to the new emergency measures unveiled Tuesday.
He was also unable to respond to revelations from internal Transport Canada documents,
released to Greenpeace Canada through access to information legislation, that his department had
57
“identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail capacity in Canada, nor with
the safety of tank cars” used for transportation of dangerous goods.
Despite longstanding warnings from the Transportation Safety Board and others about the
existing steel cars and other issues, Transport Canada had dismissed the rail safety concerns in a
memo prepared for International Trade Minister Ed Fast in January 2013.
The assistant deputy minister suggested he was not familiar with these recommendations.
“I can’t verify what that document is, so I’m not going to speculate about it,” McDonald said.
Transport Canada announced the emergency measures as some federal MPs returned to
Parliament to begin hearings, spearheaded by NDP transport critic Olivia Chow, on rail safety
issues.
But MPs eventually accepted a motion from Ontario Conservative Jeff Watson, who questioned
whether an immediate parliamentary study was necessary, to delay the hearings, pending further
results from the ongoing Transportation Safety Board investigation in Lac-Megantic.
“This committee also should be concerned in deciding whether to commence a study now
whether that draws important resources out of the field where they belong,” Watson told the
House of Commons transport committee. “That doesn’t mean there won’t be a study. The answer
from this side of the table is not a ‘no’, it’s a ‘not yet.’”
Liberal transport critic David McGuinty supported the Conservative proposal to delay the
parliamentary hearings, explaining that it would allow federal officials to focus their attention on
the ongoing investigation and rebuilding efforts, but he said the government also needed to
provide more details about its actions and its response to the disaster.
Meanwhile, Chow suggested that the Conservatives and Liberals wanted to “take the summer
off,” adding that immediate hearings could help address longstanding safety concerns and
reassure other communities fearing similar disasters in their own backyards.
With files from Andrea Hill, Postmedia News
Six emergency rules introduced Tuesday by Transport Canada:
–Ensure that no locomotive attached to one or more loaded tank cars transporting dangerous
goods is operated with fewer than two qualified persons on a main track or sidings;
–Ensure that no locomotive attached to one or more loaded tank cars transporting dangerous
goods is left unattended on a main track;
–Ensure, within five days of the issuance of the directive, that all unattended controlling
locomotives on a main track and sidings are protected from unauthorized entry into the cab;
–Ensure the directional controls, commonly known as reversers, are removed from any
unattended locomotives, preventing them from moving forward or backward, on a main track or
sidings;
58
–Ensure that their company’s special instructions on hand brakes are applied to any locomotive
attached to one or more cars that is left unattended for more than one hour on a main track or
sidings;
–Ensure that, in addition to complying with their company’s special instructions on hand brakes
referred to in the item immediately above, the automatic brake is set in full service position and
the independent brake is fully applied for any locomotive attached to one or more cars that are
left unattended for one hour or less on a main track or sidings.
Source: Transport Canada
News / Canada
July 19, 2013 - Lac-Megantic: TSB calls for urgent rail safety review
TSB head investigator Don Ross said the braking force on the train hauling light crude oil wasn’t
strong enough to hold it on the 1.2 per cent grade where it was left.
By: Jessica McDiarmid News reporter, Published on Fri Jul 19 2013
Canada’s Transportation Safety Board has recommended federal regulators urgently review
railway safety procedures for securing trains and leaving dangerous goods unattended in the wake
of the runaway train that killed 50 people in Lac-Mégantic, Que., earlier this month.
The TSB, which is investigating the incident, announced Friday that it issued two safety
advisories.
The first requests that Transport Canada review its rules for securing equipment, including the
secret company-specific instructions it approves for each railroad.
The second calls on Transport Canada to make sure trains carrying dangerous goods aren’t left
unattended on main tracks.
TSB head investigator Don Ross said the braking force on the 72-car train hauling light crude oil
wasn’t strong enough to hold it on the 1.2 per cent grade where it was left, unattended, by a
single operator at the end of his shift.
July 22, 2013 - Schumer wants crude oil carried in more secure tank
cars
Monday, July 22, 2013 by:Eric Anderson, Albany Times Union
Calling the DOT-111 railroad tank car design tragically flawed, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer on
Monday called on federal regulators to order freight railroads to phase out use of the cars for
carrying crude oil and other hazardous materials. He suggested the rail cars could be used to
carry such nonhazardous cargoes as canola oil and corn oil, or that they be retrofitted to meet
tougher safety standards.
59
His comments followed the deadly derailment of a 72-car tanker train on July 6 in Quebec that
killed 47 people and destroyed the center of Lac-Megantic, a lakeside community a few miles
from the Maine border. Schumer said about 100 cars carrying crude arrive at the Port of Albany
each day. The port has become a major transshipment point for crude heading from North
Dakota’s Bakken fields to refineries up and down the East Coast.
Schumer said 69 out of every 100 tank cars in use today are of the DOT-111 design.
The National Transportation Safety Board cited the car’s design as a major factor in the 2009
Cherry Valley, Ill. freight rail derailment and release of hazardous materials, and called for a
redesign or replacement of the DOT-111 cars.
“If the rail companies know they can’t use these, that’ll help with their planning,” Schumer said.
Propane already is carried in pressurized tank cars that have thicker shells and heads and aren’t as
prone to rupture in an accident.
Schumer wants crude oil and ethanol to be carried in the pressurized, more rugged cars as well.
Schumer said the boom in domestic oil production has fueled increased economic activity at the
Port of Albany and he didn’t want that to stop.
But, he said, “what happened in Quebec is a shot across the bow… We just want to make things
as safe as possible.
July 24, 2013 Town stuck with $4M cleanup bill
Mayor calls situation ‘highly deplorable’ after railway fails to cover cost of clearing site of
deadly explosion
By Allan Woods, Quebec bureau, Toronto Star, July 24, 2013
LAC-MÉGANTIC, QUE.— The American rail company behind the deadly explosion that
destroyed a swath of this picturesque Quebec town has ignited a fury by failing to pay more than
$4 million in cleanup bills and forcing Lac-Mégantic and the provincial government to pick up
the tab.
“This situation is highly deplorable on the part of MMA and completely unacceptable,” said LacMégantic Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche. “The town of Lac-Mégantic can no longer tolerate this
situation at a time when efforts are multiplying to deal with this tragedy.”
There was no clarification Tuesday from the office of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway’s
president and chief executive, Robert Grindrod, other than a “no comment” from his secretary.
The mayor’s comments came within hours of the federal government imposing a series of
nationwide safety directives on Tuesday that set more rigorous standards for brake application
and procedures for leaving trains unattended. The regulations also outlaw one-person crews,
which were standard with Montreal, Maine & Atlantic at the time of the accident.
60
“The disaster brought to light several industry practices which have caused some concern,” said
Gerard McDonald, assistant deputy minister of safety and security at Transport Canada. “Given
that, and with an abundance of precaution, we thought it would be prudent to implement these
measures now.”
Among Transport Canada’s other recommendations, rail companies must:

Ensure that all unattended locomotives on a main track and sidings are protected from
unauthorized entry into the cab.

Ensure the directional controls, commonly known as reversers, are removed from any
unattended locomotives to prevent them from moving forward or backward.

Ensure that handbrakes and automatic brakes are properly applied to trains left
unattended.
Changes to rail safety practices are the likely legacy of the deadliest train disaster in Quebec’s
modern history. But the dispute over who will pay MMA’s bills is the most immediate concern
for the 6,000 residents of this town and the Quebec government, whose lawyers are trying to
determine the most effective methods, other than a possibly protracted legal battle, to recoup the
funds.
The money — $4,149,187.48 — was paid out to three companies under contract to MMA to deal
with the effects of the 5.7 million litres of crude oil that was spilled into the soil, lake and river,
and spewed into the air. At one point last week, the companies threatened to quit their work and
take their vital equipment with them because they had not been paid 18 days after the July 6 train
derailment and explosion.
Edward Burkhardt, the chairman of MMA’s parent company, Rail World, had vowed in the days
after the accident that the company would do right by the town and victims of accident. That
included paying compensation, helping in the cleanup and rebuilding the tracks.
But there was only silence on Tuesday in response to Roy-Laroche’s revelation — no response
from Burkhardt’s Chicago offices, nor from the company’s lawyer in Montreal.
Jim Carson, president of the Ottawa-based Eastern Canada Response Corp., which goes by the
French acronym SIMEC, said the rail company signed a contract for services in the event of an
oil spill before the July 6 accident occurred. There was never any attempt or explanation for its
failure to pay its $1,399,187.48 bill.
Another company, MD-UN, which is based in the Richelieu valley, south of Montreal, would
have been out $2 million had the Quebec government not stepped in to pay the bill. The third
firm, Arkansas-based Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health (CTEH), approached city
officials when its $750,000 bill went unpaid, according to a lawyer’s letter sent to MMA
demanding that the city be reimbursed for the costs.
An official with CTEH confirmed that the city stepped in to pay the bill, but could offer no
reasons for why the rail company could not, or would not, pay.
61
Radio-Canada reported earlier this week that MMA had reported to Canadian authorities a
primary insurance plan that would cover the rail company for up to $25 million in damages. The
expectation is that the final bill for the Lac-Mégantic cleanup and recovery will work out to many
multiples of that amount.
“I hope that MMA will respect its responsibilities and act like a good corporate citizen,” the
mayor said.
Town lawyers are now demanding that, within the next 48 hours, the rail company provide it
with a list of officials it has tasked with overseeing the cleanup effort; a daily update on how that
work is proceeding; a complete list of the contractors it has hired; and a comprehensive plan to
ensure better co-ordination.
Notes:–RA
* The mayor of Lac Megantic has been among those lobbying since soon after the disaster to get
the MMA rail line back up and running. So her new-found critique of MMA may be taken with a
grain of salt. And this is from the Globe and Mail, July 9, 2013:
Not long ago, town officials were openly praising MM&A, a short-line railway that was teetering
on the edge of financial ruin before making a few key moves in recent years, including securing a
contract to move oil from the western United States to the Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, N.B.
In August, 2009, Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche officially inaugurated a new MM&A spur into a
local industrial park, praising the development – largely government financed – for bringing a
much-needed economic boost to the town.
* From the Toronto Star, July 24, 2013:
Milliana Alliance (18 months old) is one of three children to lose both parents in the disaster,
according to a report in Le Journal de Montréal. The other two were siblings. An estimated 21
children lost at least one parent that night.
July 24, 2013 - Transport Canada downplayed risks of shipping oil
by rail
Blogpost by Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada, July 24, 2013
Yesterday, the Conservatives used their majority on the House of Commons Transport
Committee to vote down an NDP motion to examine rail safety in light of the Lac Megantic
tragedy. This is unfortunate. For even while the investigation into the specifics of what happened
in Lac Megantic is ongoing, there is ample evidence that earlier safety warnings with respect to
the transport of hazardous goods by rail have been ignored.
The federal government has introduced some new safety measures, but these were mostly nobrainers like ‘lock the door if you are going to leave the engine running in an unattended
locomotive’. These measures, while welcome, shouldn’t distract us from how more troublesome
warnings from safety experts on both sides of the border were ignored as the federal government
allowed (and even encouraged) the dramatic increase in the amount of oil being shipped by rail in
North America over the last three years.
62
In reading the internal government memos on this new wave of oil-by-rail (obtained by
Greenpeace under Access to Information legislation), I was struck by how the Harper
government was so focused on increasing the amount of money received per barrel of oil by
getting more oil moving by rail, that it turned a blind eye to the recommendations of their own
safety experts.
A 2013 memo entitled “Transporting Crude Oil by Rail”, prepared for Natural Resources
Minister Joe Oliver, highlights the role that oil by rail can play in reducing the price discount
facing Alberta’s oil industry and that “NRCan is currently meeting with Transport Canada to
mutually understand how rail can be part of a solution to current market access challenges.”
The issue of safety is not raised in the NRCan memo, but it is discussed in memo entitled
“Potential for Oil by Rail” prepared for Ed Fast, Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Denis
Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. (Note: Greenpeace obtained three
versions of the memo, dated May 28, 2012, December 14, 2012 and January 30, 2013, but the
wording for this section was identical in all three):
“TC [Transport Canada] has identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail
capacity in Canada, nor with the safety of tank cars that are designed, maintained, qualified and
used according to Canadian and US standards and regulations. Indeed, Canada and the US
work collaboratively to ensure the harmonization of rail safety requirements. The transportation
of oil by rail does not trigger the need for a federal environmental assessment under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), however, proposals to construct new
infrastructure to support the activity may be required to determine CEAA’s applicability.”
These assurances with respect to the safety of the rail tank cars (called 111A cars in Canada and
DOT-111 cars in the United States) stands in marked contrast to the repeated warnings from
Canada’s Transportation Safety Board (TSB) and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB).
This is why Greenpeace, along with over 50 other organizations, is calling for an end to the use
of these older-model tanker cars to carry petroleum products, along with a comprehensive safety
review of how we move oil in this country.
These are not new concerns. As far back as 1994, the Canadian TSB wrote “The susceptibility of
111A tank cars to release product at derailment and impact is well documented. The transport of
a variety of the most hazardous products in such cars continues.” The TSB has continued to
highlight these problems:
“At approximately 1440 eastern daylight time on 17 August 2004, 18 tank cars of Canadian
National train U-781-21-17, a petroleum product unit train travelling from the Ultramar
Canada Inc. refinery in Lévis, district of Saint-Romuald, Quebec, and bound for Montréal,
Quebec, derailed at Mile 3.87 of the Lévis Subdivision, in the marshy area of the Grande Plée
Bleue, near Saint-Henri-de-Lévis. Approximately 200 000 litres of gasoline and diesel fuel
spilled into the marshy area, but the spilled product was recovered. There were no injuries.
“The damage sustained by the Class 111A tank cars involved in this occurrence and the risks
posed by the subsequent product release are typical of that identified in previous TSB
63
investigations. In this occurrence, there was a significant spill of hydrocarbons when the tank
shells and heads were breached even though the derailment happened in a marshy area where
the surrounding terrain was particularly soft. Other occurrences investigated by the TSB have
also revealed the vulnerability of this type of car to puncture, even in low-speed accidents (TSB
report R99D0159 (Cornwall) and TSB report R05H0011 (Maxville)).”
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has been even more critical. It issued its first
warning with respect to the 111 tanker cars in 1991. In March 2012, the NTSB wrote the
following to the U.S. government agency considering higher standards for DOT-111 tanker cars:
“During a number of accident investigations over a period of years, the NTSB has noted that
DOT-111 tank cars have a high incidence of tank failures during accidents. Previous NTSB
investigations that identified the poor performance of DOT-111 tank cars include a May 1991
safety study as well as NTSB investigations of a June 30, 1992, derailment in Superior
Wisconsin; a February 9, 2003, derailment in Tamaroa, Illinois; and an October 20, 2006,
derailment of an ethanol unit train in New Brighton, Pennsylvania. In addition, on February 6,
2011, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) investigated the derailment of a unit train of
DOT-111 tank cars loaded with ethanol in Arcadia, Ohio, which released about 786,000 gallons
of product.
“The fact that DOT-111 general service tank cars experience more serious damage in accidents
than pressure tank cars, such as DOT-105 or the DOT-112 cars, can be attributed to the fact
that pressure tank cars have thicker shells and heads. The pressure cars are also usually
equipped with metal jackets, head shields, and strong protective housings for top fittings. They
do not have bottom outlet valves, which have been proven to be prone to failure in derailment
accidents.
“Of the 15 derailed DOT-111 tank cars that piled up in this accident, 13 cars lost product from
head and shell breaches or through damaged valves and fittings, or a combination of the two.
This represents an overall failure rate of 87 percent and illustrates the continued inability of
DOT-111 tank cars to withstand the forces of accidents, even when the train is traveling at 36
mph, as was the case in this accident. Head breaches resulting in the release of denatured fuel
ethanol occurred in 9 of the 15 tank cars in the pileup. Head failures in seven of the cars were
apparently caused by coupler or draft sill strikes. Two of the tank heads were breached by other
striking objects or tank car structures. Additionally, side shells of three of the tank cars were
breached as a result of car-to-car impacts. Clearly, the heads and shells of DOT-111 tank cars,
such as those that are used to transport denatured fuel ethanol in unit trains, can almost always
be expected to breach in derailments that involve pileups or multiple car-to-car impacts. The
inability of the DOT-111 tank car heads and shells to retain lading in this accident is
comparable with previously mentioned ethanol unit train accidents that occurred in New
Brighton, Pennsylvania, in which 12 heads or shells were breached of 23 derailed tank cars, and
in Arcadia, Ohio, in which 28 heads and shells of 32 derailed tank cars were breached.
“DOT-111 tank cars make up about 69 percent of the national tank car fleet, and denatured fuel
ethanol is ranked as the largest-volume hazardous materials commodity shipped by rail. This
accident demonstrates the need for extra protection such as head shields, tank jackets, more
robust top fittings protection, and modification of bottom outlet valves on DOT-111 tank cars
64
used to transport hazardous materials. The NTSB concluded that if enhanced tank head and shell
puncture-resistance systems such as head shields, tank jackets, and increased shell thicknesses
had been features of the DOT-111 tank cars involved in this accident, the release of hazardous
materials likely would have been significantly reduced, mitigating the severity of the accident.”
Time to get these unsafe cars off the rails, or at least don’t fill them up with liquids that catch fire
easily and explode.
MM&A used siding track for storage
Siding was equipped with additional safety equipment, but the deadly train was parked on
the main line
By Kim Mackrael, Justin Giovannetti, Globe and Mail, July 25, 2013
The U.S.-based company whose train derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Que., regularly left loaded trains
unsupervised on the main line so it could use the more secure siding as a storage space for a local
manufacturer’s unused rail cars.
Montreal, Maine & Atlantic used a railway siding in Nantes to store rail cars set aside for Tafisa,
a particleboard manufacturer located in Lac-Mégantic’s industrial park. The practice did not
contravene any safety regulations, but it meant MM&A engineers were unable to pull onto the
siding when parking trains during a crew change.
The Transportation Safety Board is still investigating what caused an MM&A train to begin
rolling down the track from Nantes on July 6. The train picked up speed on a downhill slope and
jumped the track after about 10 kilometres, setting off a series of fiery explosions that destroyed
downtown Lac-Mégantic and killed an estimated 47 people.
But a growing body of evidence suggests several factors may have contributed to the crash,
including MM&A’s practice of leaving trains unattended on the main line instead of moving
them onto the siding, a stretch of parallel track equipped with a large metal derailer that is
designed to push the front of the train off the tracks and stop it from moving farther.
Transport Canada issued an “emergency directive” this week requiring railways to ensure that
trains carrying hazardous goods are moved off the main tracks, among a series of other changes.
The new policies were introduced days after TSB investigators in Lac-Mégantic warned federal
regulators that there were no rules against the practice.
Before the crash, MM&A used two sidings to serve the Tafisa, one in Nantes and another to the
east of Lac-Mégantic, located near the border with the United States. The company’s CEO, Louis
Brassard, told The Globe and Mail that the sidings are used as “parking lots” for cars the
company isn’t using.
Every week until the July 6 derailment, between 50 and 60 rail cars were slowly driven inside the
sprawling Tafisa complex, located in an industrial park east of downtown Lac-Mégantic, and
loaded with tonnes of particleboard and melamine. The factory’s finished product was then
shipped west, bound for Montreal and other North American markets.
65
“We load the trains seven days a week,” said Mr. Brassard, explaining why the railway kept a
steady supply of empty cars near the factory.
MM&A chairman Edward Burkhardt has cast blame on the train’s engineer for the LacMégantic
accident, saying he believes the employee failed to set enough handbrakes to hold it in place once
the air brakes failed. But railway experts say the siding could have provided another layer of
protection – if the company had made use of it.
“If their practice had been to store it on a siding with the derail installed, this never would have
happened,” said Wayne Benedict, a former locomotive engineer with CP Rail and B.C. Rail. “No
matter how many handbrakes were or were not put on there, when the pneumatic braking system
failed and the handbrakes failed to hold the equipment, it would have just plopped off the derail
at the east end of Nantes and that would have been an end to it.”
Mr. Burkhardt could not be reached for comment on Wednesday. But earlier this week, he told
The Globe and Mail that MM&A would no longer leave any of its trains – including those
carrying dangerous goods – on the main tracks without supervision.
On Wednesday, a rusted yellow derailer sat clamped on the siding in Nantes, with a large yellow
warning sign planted in the gravel nearby. Farther back, nearly two-dozen boxcars remained in
the same location on the siding where they have been since the crash. Mr. Brassard said the cars
were scheduled to come to the Tafisa factory for loading, but Quebec provincial police have not
allowed them to be moved.
5. Wrongful death suit in Quebec train crash filed in U.S.
By Casey Sullivan, Reuters, July 23, 2013
The guardian of a girl whose Canadian father died in the tragic Quebec train crash this month
filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Illinois on Monday against a number of railway and fuel
services companies connected with the disaster.
The lawsuit is believed to be the first filed in the United States related to the train derailment in
the early hours of July 6 that sent 72 tankers of crude oil crashing into the village of LacMegantic in Quebec, where they exploded in a ball of fire, killing almost 50 people.
Annick Roy, the guardian of Fanny Roy Veilleux, whose father Jean-Guy Veilleux, a LacMegantic resident, allegedly burned to death as a result of the train crash, filed the lawsuit in
Cook County. Court documents did not provide the age of Fanny Roy Veilleux, but described her
as a minor daughter.
The defendants include railroad operator Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway Inc, its parent
company Rail World Inc, MMA Chairman Edward Burkhardt, and fuel services company World
Fuel Services Corp [2012 revenue of $39 billion].
Roy alleges in the suit that the companies largely failed to keep the train’s oil tankers, known as
DOT-111s, up to reasonable government safety standards and are therefore negligent in the death
of Veilleux.
66
“For more than 20 years, problems with DOT-111 tankers rupturing upon derailment have been
well documented by government safety regulators and media outlets,” Roy said in the lawsuit.
“The railroad and petroleum industries have long acknowledged the design flaws in the DOT111, but have consistently ignored the (National Transportation Safety Board’s) calls to address
the dangers associated with rupture of the tankers.”
Roy said in the lawsuit that the tanker cars that spilled in Lac-Megantic were the same type that
ruptured in a 2009 derailment in Cherry Valley, Illinois, that resulted in a spillage of 324,000
gallons of ethanol. The Lac-Megantic tankers lacked safety improvements recommended by the
NTSB, the lawsuit said.
Other defendants named in the lawsuit are Western Petroleum Company, Petroleum Transport
Solutions, Dakota Plains Transloading LLC, Dakota Petroleum Transport Solutions, Dakota
Plaints Marketing and DPTS Marketing.
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic, Rail World, Edward Burkhardt, World Fuel Services Corp and
other defendants were approached for comment on the suit but did not immediately respond. Nor
did the lawyer representing Roy, Peter Flowers of Chicago-based Meyers & Flowers.
About a week after the crash, Canadian and U.S. lawyers filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
two Lac-Megantic residents, Guy Ouellet and Yannick Gagne, in Quebec Superior Court to seek
compensation from the accident. Defendants included the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic and
Burkhardt, among others.
September 9, 2013 – Statement by RWU - A Discussion of the BLET
and UTU Response to Lac Megantic
Opinion by Railroad Workers United
On July 6th, an unmanned oil tanker train, that had been operated engineer-only and secured by
him, ran away from its securement, hurtled into the town of Lac Megantic, Quebec, derailing,
exploding, reducing a significant portion of the town to rubble, killing approximately 50 people
and injuring countless more.
Within two days, the engineer was being publicly scapegoated by the railroad’s CEO and now
faces criminal charges. Two weeks later, on July 19th, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
&Trainmen (BLET) President Dennis Pierce issued an official statement on the subject of the Lac
Megantic tragedy and the pressing issue of single-employee train crews. Perhaps in response to
this statement, United Transportation Union (UTU) President Mike Futhey issued a statement on
August 8th, addressing the same issue. RWU wholeheartedly supports Pierce’s position that the
BLET spearhead “a nationwide effort to end single-person operations” and Futhey’s stand that we
honor the victims “by fighting for change”.
However, we do take some issue with their delayed response, the contradictions between past
deeds and present words, and their vision of the forms this fight may take. Given the stakes
involved for us as rail workers, as well as the public, validated by the horrifying magnitude of
67
this tragedy, we feel that a few constructively critical observations are in order.
Pierce cites “respect for the grieving” as the reasoning behind not commenting on this tragedy for
almost two weeks before stating, “I can no longer remain silent”. RWU believes rail labor should
quickly make its voice heard whenever such an important issue makes national news and the
public’s attention is focused on the question. It is not often that the public notices the railroad.
When it does, it offers us an invaluable opportunity to get our point of view across. Ed Burkhart
(President of the MM&A Railroad) certainly got his view out there in real time. Likewise we
need to get the truth in front of the news media and before the public. To their credit, the
Steelworkers union in Canada quickly spoke out in defense of the engineer and condemned
MM&A’s actions.
Futhey takes credit for “submitting petitions to governmental agencies and by talking directly to
the carriers”, only to lament that, “Unfortunately our demands for safety regulations, either
arbitrarily or voluntarily have fallen on deaf ears”. We wholeheartedly applaud both Pierce and
Futhey when they take the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to task for their non-regulation
of railroad safety when it comes to single-employee crew operations. The FRA has the power to
enact regulations to make railroad operations safer and is quick to do so when employee mistakes
make the news. However, prior to this tragedy the FRA had been virtually silent on the subject of
single-employee crews. Every railroader (whether they be rank-and-file or elected union leaders),
the public and our congressional representatives should be constantly asking the FRA why they
are opposed to making railroad operations safer by regulating crew size.
Pierce Invites SMART (UTU) to Join the Effort
RWU agrees with Pierce when he invites the UTU to join the BLET to fight single employee
train crews. However, we cannot ignore the past struggles for unity between the two unions on
this issue. It was January 31st, 2006 when the UTU and BLET presidents linked arms and
declared “we will never tolerate single employee crews!” Unfortunately this rare unified defiant
stand would have a limited shelf life. The next year the BNSF and the BLET reached an onproperty agreement to allow RCO outside of the confines of the yard and expand its use to the
road (a key component the carriers seek to be able to employ conductor-less trains on the road).
And who would be the proud operator of the RCO box on a single employee train? The BLET
represented engineer would. A few days later UTU President Paul Thompson wrote a scathing
letter to BLET President Paul Sorrow accusing the BLET of back stabbing treachery and a failure
to live up to the agreement to oppose single employee train operations. That was the end of the
short-lived agreement between the two unions on the question of single-employee trains. It’s
worth noting that the general chairman at this time of the BLET’s BNSF General Committee that
negotiated this language and sold it to his members as great “job security” was Dennis Pierce.
Meanwhile, the UTU proceeded to allow single-employee RCO yard operations. RWU will
continue to publicly demand that the two unions unite once and for all behind this life-and-death
issue, and put the interests of engineers and trainmen ahead of suicidal, self-interest driven
jurisdictional squabbles.
Burkhart Runs Single-Employee Trains “because he can”
Brother Pierce tells us that Ed Burkhart, CEO of the MM&A, runs trains with a single-employee
“because he can”. Doesn’t this beg the question, “Why can he?” He “can” because the unions and
the carriers have negotiated the language that opens the door to allow for this practice. For much
68
of the last decade the only voice in the wilderness that has been actively opposing single
employee crews has been RWU. He “can” because the unions have done next to nothing to
educate the public about the dangers that communities, like Lac Megantic, face with the singleemployee operation of trains. He “can” because the unions unconditionally accept the terms of
engagement that keep us in a virtual straightjacket for any meaningful fight for safety. He “can”
because the regulatory agencies are more concerned with the carriers’ needs and interests. The
fact that the MM&A has been running single-employee trains south of the border for some time
no doubt pressured the Canadian government to allow a waiver for the MM&A to do the same
thing on the other side of the border in 2012, thus setting the stage for the tragedy in Lac
Megantic. Burkhart, like any other railroad carrier CEO, can run trains with a single-employee
train crew – if the public, the government, society and the workforce let them. Our job as a union
is to stop this from happening!
It’s worth noting here one more explanation. He “can” because for decades the unions have done
virtually nothing to challenge the attacks on our wages and working conditions that escalated
with the proliferation of “short line” railroads, most of them spun off from the major carriers. At
worst the unions and contractual agreements were eliminated with the stroke of a pen and the
shuffling of a few papers. At best the unions remained to sanction and legitimize these attacks or
managed to recoup what was left of their lost dues base once the dirty deeds were done. The
“short lines” have proven to be useful as the testing grounds for the future attacks on the major
carriers’ workforce. Without a national standard of wages and working conditions, we will
continue on this spiraling death race to the bottom.
Why Did It Take So Long?
Brother Pierce has been the BLET president for four years, while Brother Futhey has been the
UTU president for six years. Over that time they both have remained virtually silent on the whole
question of single-employee train operations. RWU sent certified letters regarding this issue to
both the BLET & UTU presidents in the spring of 2011. We received no response. We tried again
in the fall, asking the two union heads to make a public statement against single employee crews.
It is very telling that neither union president saw fit to take a position that 90% or more of their
members would say is a very important issue. We believe it is sad that valuable time has been lost
when we could have been educating the public across the continent to enlist their support in
actively fighting the scourge of single-employee train crews.
Their Strategy to Fight Single Employee Crews
Pierce and Futhey are now taking a long overdue, defiant stand against single-employee train
crews, but they want to limit us to just two ways to do it: legislatively or at the bargaining table.
Although a campaign to convince Congress to act against single-employee crews could possibly
succeed (especially in the aftermath of Lac Megantic) it must be pursued vigorously, immediately
and with the active participation of rank-and-file railroaders and public organizations. And while
we might possibly be able to bargain language insisting on two person crews (very unlikely),
there is so much more we can and must do.
What Else Can Be Done?
First, we need to educate rank and file railroad workers that the carriers have in fact desired and
have proposed operating trains with a single employee. We should alert all rails that single crew
69
operations in the yard with RCO take place all the time now. We need to build upon the anger
and resentment that railroad workers feel towards this deadly practice and tap that energy for
action.
It is past time we brought this issue to our central labor bodies to alert the entire labor movement
to the prospects of single-employee crews. Countless environmental and community groups must
be enlisted to be our allies in this struggle, as none would want to see single employee crews
putting their neighborhoods and this nation’s land, air and water as risk. We can pressure the
carriers to back down from the deadly single-employee crew idea through pickets and rallies,
petitions and letter writing, phone call and emails blitzes. We need to show the rail carriers that if
they attempt to implement single-employee train crews, it ain’t gonna work!
We applaud Brother Pierce and Brother Futhey for speaking out publicly against single-employee
train crews. It is up to all of us to get behind the campaign to stop single-employee crews, to hold
all of our union leaders accountable, and demand that they commit the resources to mount a
creative and militant campaign to stop the carriers’ plan for single-employee train crews in its
tracks. But it has been over two months now since the union presidents issued their statements of
outrage at single employee crews. Other than President Pierce's bold statement about a national
campaign, neither union has taken action. Where is the campaign, the leaflets, the bumper
stickers, posters and flyers? What have the members been asked to do to get involved in this
campaign? How do we plan to impress the rail carriers of our determination and dedication to
preventing single employee train crews? While we wait for Pierce and Futhey to back up their
tough rhetoric with real action, RWU will continue to advocate against this dangerous practice
anywhere, anytime, in any way that we can.
September 9, 2013 – Statement by RWU - The Lac Megantic
Runaway Train Disaster Why Did it Happen?
Opinion by Railroad Workers United
In the wake of the terrible tragedy that beset the small town of Lac Megantic, Quebec on July 6th,
the temptation is to look for a single factor, a single policy, or a single individual upon which to
place the blame. Many in the town will be tempted to blame the notorious anti-union and lax-onsafety railroad CEO Ed Burkhart. Meanwhile Burkhart blamed the fire department and is now
pointing fingers at the train’s engineer.
However, those who study the root causes of disasters like this one generally agree that they are
70
months, if not years in the making, and are the combined result of a host of factors. And while
any single factor may have been the major catalyst or trigger, a whole host of precursors more
than likely led up to the disaster. These might well include the actions of Ed Burkhart as well as
the engineer, but also include numerous other factors, such as single employee train operations,
the advent of short lines and spinoffs, the poor safety record on the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic
Railroad, inspection exemptions for unit trains like the one involved; general maintenance and
staffing issues on the MM&A, the deregulatory environment in Canada in recent years, and more.
And while the ongoing investigation may take months or even years before the investigation
team reaches a final conclusion, it is safe to speculate that some or all of the factors listed here all
contributed in some fashion to creating a powder keg that finally exploded in Lac Megantic the
night of July 6th, 2013.
Ed Burkhart – MM&A CEO
MM&A CEO Ed Burkhart is a renegade in the rail industry. Vehemently anti-union and
dictatorial, Burkhart gained notoriety with his first railroad, The Wisconsin Central where he was
CEO from 1987 to 1999. During his reign there, he attempted single employee train crew
operations, fought numerous union organizing drives, and had a poor safety record. In 1996, a
similar spectacular train wreck involving hazardous materials occurred in Weyauwega,
Wisconsin, complete with blazing fire balls and the town’s complete evacuation. After being
removed by the WC Board in 1999, “Fast Eddie” went on to purchase the recently privatized
railway in New Zealand, and did the same hatchet job on safety and staffing there. It would
appear that his reckless, irresponsible behavior has continued at the MM&A.
According to one source, “The modus operandi for all of Burkhardt’s adventures in railroading is
to fire as many employees as possible, grind down the wages of the ones who remain, and
maximize the profits for himself and his fellow investors.”
The MM&A Engineer
The engineer who was in charge of the train, Tom Harding, has more than 30 years experience on
the railroad. Tom tied his train down for the night before departing for the hotel. What complicity
he has in the events that would unfold that fateful night will be better known after the event
recorder is analyzed. But we may never know if he set the appropriate number of handbrakes, as
there is no software record of this activity and the cars that would have been hand-braked were at
the head of the train, and these cars were completely destroyed in the inferno.
Unit Train Maintenance
Through special waivers, some unit trains that stay together as a “unit” and circulate from mine
to mill or in this case from oil fill-up to oil load-out and back again in a cycle, are exempt from
the scrutiny that other trains receive. It is possible that the brake shoes on the cars of the train
were worn beyond a safe level, and/or the brake seals and gaskets were worn and subject to
above average leakage of compressed air. A few carmen we’ve discussed this incident with raised
questions about the train’s air brakes bleeding off in such a short time period after the engine was
shut down. Potentially some of this might come out in the future investigation.
The MM&A Safety Record and Safety Culture
71
The accident has shined a spotlight on MMA's safety record. Over the past decade, the company
has consistently recorded a much higher accident rate than the national average in the U.S.,
according to data from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
Last year, for instance, the railroad had 36.1 accidents per million miles traveled by its trains. The
national average for 2012 was 14.6.
These statistics point to a railroad that is lax on safety as a matter of policy. So this outlook could
easily have contributed to any failure on the part of the engineer to strictly follow the rules,
knowing perhaps that the company tolerated or even encouraged “short cuts” to save time and
money. It potentially contributed to a failure to: 1-- properly inspect the train at its initial terminal
as well; and/or 2 -- properly inspect/repair the locomotive that was badly leaking oil upon arrival
at the end of its run (which resulted in the locomotive fire); and/or 3 – take action when informed
by the engineer that the locomotive had a serious oil leak which could have prevented the fire
and eventual locomotive shut down around midnight.
Canadian Government Lack of Oversight and Regulation
According to the United Steelworkers of America (USW), the union that represents 75 employees
at MM&A in Canada, in recent times, the government of Canada has taken a “laissez –fair”
approach to transport operations. “Over the years, the federal government has deregulated rail
transport as well as the aviation industry” said Daniel Roy, United Steelworkers’ Quebec
Director.
In fact, by the time the Mulroney government was finished with its reforms, the rail industry was
deregulated, and companies had rewritten the safety rules. That launched an era of cost-cutting,
massive lay-offs, and speed-ups on the job, and eventually, the full privatization of companies
and rail-lines. The subsequent Liberal government completed the job by turning over what
regulation remained to rail companies themselves. A report issued in 2007 by a safety group
spelled out the result: Canada's rail system was a disaster in the waiting.
The rail carriers have been using old rail cars to ship the new Bakken oil, despite the fact that
regulators warned the federal government they were unsafe, as far back as 20 years ago. A more
recent report by a federal agency reminded the government that the cars could be "subject to
damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials." All of these warnings have been ignored.
Short Lines and Spinoffs
The rail line in question operated by the MM&A was previously owned by the Canadian Pacific
in the late 1990s. The sale by the CP was part of the arrival of the so-called “short lines” in
Canada, some of which consist of rail operations that were abandoned by large rail corporations.
These “spin-offs” greatly benefitted the large railroads who were now able to shed the
responsibility of operating less profitable lines while in many cases continuing to receive the
more lucrative “long haul”, since the short line delivers its loaded rail cars to the big railroad for
forwarding.
These short lines do not have the resources and are not subject to scrutiny the way larger
railroads like CP and CN are. Because short lines are often lightly used, the track, locomotives
and other equipment are is often not maintained to a level that is maintained by the larger, richer
72
railroads.
Single Employee Train Crews
The MM&A had convinced the federal government in 2012 that it could safely handle trains with
a single employee. Transport Canada gave the railroad the green light in late 2012 to reduce
staffing aboard road trains. (Apparently the carrier had previously been running trains with a
single employee south of the border). Common sense dictates that two heads are better than one,
that two sets of eyes and ears see and hear more, and that two fatigued employees at the end of a
long day in the middle of the night will remember and respond better than just one. It is debatable
to just what extent the single employee crew role played in the wreck, but it is safe to say that in
all likelihood, a traditional crew of both engineer and conductor would have performed the
securement of the train in a more efficient and safe manner.
Securing Trains on A Steep Grade
Just west of where the train was left standing is apparently relatively level terrain. Had the train
broke free and ran away here, it would have almost certainly have caused no damage whatsoever
and rolled to
a stop at a slow speed. Why then was it standard practice to leave an extremely heavy and
dangerous loaded oil train at the top of a steep grade when it was not necessary to do so? Did the
company stand to save money on cab ride or other fees? Whatever the case, there is no excuse for
regularly leaving a train unattended on such a steep grade. Railroad property is almost universally
easily accessible to pedestrians, and on a Saturday night, it is feasible that young revelers could
knock off the train’s hand and/or air brakes, setting it free to roll.
Conclusion
While it can be endlessly debated which of the above factors played a “key role” or a “major” or
“minor” role in the train wreck, what we can plainly see is a disturbing pattern by which rail
corporations, oil companies, big business and their political allies have all combined to create an
irresponsible and unsafe situation where corporate profits are placed well ahead of public and
worker safety. Deregulation, lax oversight, short staffing, inadequate legally mandated rest,
reductions in train crew size, poor maintenance, corner cutting and more are the root causes that
ultimately result in train wrecks. Unless and until this trend is halted and reversed, we are bound
to see more cataclysmic train wrecks of this nature. We simply cannot trust the safety of the
public and the safety of railroad workers to the rail corporations, big or small, in Canada or the
U.S.
September 13, 2013 - Broken piston blamed for fire that led to LacMégantic disaster
GRANT ROBERTSON, JUSTIN GIOVANNETTI AND KIM MACKRAEL
TORONTO, LAC-MÉGANTIC, QUE., AND OTTAWA — From Friday's Globe and Mail
(Includes Correction)
73
Published Friday, Sep. 13 2013, 6:00 AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Sep. 13 2013, 3:08 PM EDT
The mystery locomotive fire that touched off the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster was started by a
broken piston in the train’s engine, sparking a series of tragic events that led to the explosive
derailment in the heart of the Quebec town, according to a preliminary investigation.
Until now, the reason the engine caught fire prior to the derailment had not been known. But the
results of a preliminary investigation into the burned locomotive by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic
Railway suggest the engine had a broken piston, which caused the fire. The problem caused
unburned fuel to seep throughout the engine, resulting in smoke and sparks aboard the
locomotive.
Once the blaze was extinguished, the train broke loose after fire crews switched off the engine,
which caused the air brakes holding the cars in place to eventually fail. The Transportation Safety
Board said not enough hand brakes had been set on the cars, as a backup to the air brakes, and the
train rolled down a hill into town, where its crude oil cargo exploded, leaving 47 dead and
ravaging the downtown.
Although MM&A is not involved in the TSB investigation of the disaster, “one of the last things
that we were permitted to find out about is what happened to that engine that caused a fire on the
engine,” MM&A chairman Ed Burkhardt said in an interview. “The turbo charger in the exhaust
manifold had a lot of unburned fuel oil thrown up into it because of this problem.”
While the broken piston answers key questions about how the original fire began, it raises further
questions about MM&A’s responsibility in the disaster. In the days following the tragedy, Mr.
Burkhardt alleged that MM&A’s engineer failed to apply a sufficient number of hand brakes,
which are located on each car to keep the train in place if the air brakes fail.
The new details open debate about whether the engine should have been turned off immediately,
when the oil seepage was detected, rather than left running. Mr. Burkhardt said company policy
dictates that the train should be shut down if the engine is smoking or sparking.
“There is no issue about how the train derailed,” Mr. Burkhardt said. “[But] If you have an
engine with a broken piston and it’s shooting unburned fuel oil out of the exhaust stack, and
things like that, and heavy sparking and all that, you don’t leave it running.”
In addition to the alleged actions of the MM&A engineer, the decisions made by the train’s
dispatchers on how to handle the problem may also come under scrutiny. The lawyer
representing the train’s engineer said the smoke from the locomotive was discussed with other
officials at MM&A.
“There was a lot of smoke while he drove the train, and he reported that on arrival – they have to
do that,” said Thomas Walsh, the lawyer for MM&A’s engineer, Tom Harding.
Mr. Walsh said he reviewed some tapes of the conversations between Mr. Harding and the
dispatchers, and the issue of shutting down the train did not come up in the tapes he heard. The
74
fire broke out after the engineer parked the train for the night and retired to a local hotel at the
end of his shift.
“There was no question of them telling him to keep the locomotive running or otherwise,” Mr.
Walsh said. “My understanding is that as a matter of course, they keep them [the engines]
running,” to keep the air brakes operational.
MM&A was not carrying enough insurance to cover the disaster, which will run into the billions
of dollars once lawsuits and cleanup costs are tabulated. The railway has since filed for
bankruptcy protection from its creditors.
In the days after the derailment, MM&A placed substantial blame on members of the nearby
Nantes volunteer fire department for shutting off the train’s locomotives once the fire was
extinguished, since it affected the operations of the air brakes. However, Mr. Burkhart’s position
now is that the engine should have been shut off as soon as the heavy smoke was noticed, before
the fire was allowed to start.
The TSB has since called on regulators to write more prescriptive rules for parking trains,
including the number of hand brakes that must be set as a backup to the air brakes.
The results of the TSB investigation into the crash are not expected for several months. René
Verret, a spokesman for the director of criminal and penal prosecutions in Quebec, said his office
is still waiting for a report from police on their investigation.
Mr. Verret said it is possible that police could choose to make arrests on their own. But he added
that in complex investigations, police usually provide a report to his office first and then
determine how to proceed. “No accusations can be taken against anyone [by the Crown] until we
first receive the report,” Mr. Verret said. “And then we take the time to analyze it and to decide if
we’re going to prosecute some people and what kind of accusation we will take.”
The Sûreté du Québec had previously made it clear that it was looking for evidence of criminal
negligence in the tragedy.
Editor’s Note: An earlier online version of this story and the original newspaper version
incorrectly referred to the brakes on the train as hydraulic, rather than air brakes. This online
version has been corrected to reflect that terminology.
September 11, 2013 - Crude that exploded in
Lac-Mégantic was mislabelled: officials
JACQUIE McNISH, GRANT ROBERTSON AND KIM MACKRAEL
The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Sep. 11 2013, 6:00 AM EDT Last updated
Thursday, Sep. 12 2013, 9:41 PM EDT
The Transportation Safety Board is calling on Canadian and U.S. regulators to take pains to
ensure that hazardous materials are accurately classified.
75
The TSB, which investigates major transportation incidents, issued a safety advisory letter
Wednesday morning, informing Transport Canada and the United States Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration that the crude on a runaway train that devastated Lac-Mégantic
was more volatile than its classification indicated.
Canadian investigators say the oil was inconsistently described, raising questions about the
regulation of crude shipments in North America.
TSB investigators wrote in a letter to the two agencies that the material safety data forms they
examined “varied widely” and were sometimes contradictory with respect to the properties of the
oil on the train.
Stressing that its investigation is ongoing, the TSB called on regulators in Canada and the U.S. to
review their procedures to ensure products are adequately described.
“It’s important that dangerous goods in transport be properly described,” said Donald Ross, the
TSB’s lead investigator, noting that workers need reliable information to safely handle such
goods.
However, even if the oil had been properly classified, current rules do not require it to be
transported in a different type of tank car. But Mr. Ross said the incident “calls into question” the
adequacy of the rail cars used to transport such material.
U.S. authorities have suggested the volatile oil should be shipped in smaller quantities in rail
cars.
Mr. Ross said proper classification would not have changed the way fire departments responded
to the fiery train derailment.
The oil came from suppliers from the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota, TSB
investigators said. It was moved by highway trucks to New Town, where it was loaded into rail
cars.
TSB investigators visited New Town after the accident in Lac-Mégantic and examined material
safety data sheets from 10 different suppliers in the area. While all of the suppliers labelled the
oil as a dangerous good, but they were not consistent in indicating how volatile it was.
At least four of the suppliers indicated that their crude should be designated packing group 1 –
indicating the highest volatility – and two indicated that it was necessary to determine the flash
point of the crude to classify it accurately. Another four classified their crude as either packing
group 2 or 3.
Despite those differences, all of the shippers moving crude from the suppliers to a loading facility
in New Town classified it correctly, as packing group 2.
Finally, when the crude was loaded into a train, the shipper billed all of the tank cars as the less
hazardous group 3.
76
TSB officials concluded the lighter, more volatile crude should have been classified as group 2
oil – meaning it was as flammable as gasoline.
Investigators said it would be up to the importer of the crude – Irving Oil, in the case of the train
that crashed in Lac-Mégantic – to ensure the product being imported is classified correctly.
Transport Minister Lisa Raitt issued a statement Wednesday saying she had directed Transport
Canada officials to review the TSB letter “as quickly as possible.”
“If a company does not properly classify its goods, they can be prosecuted under the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act,” Ms. Raitt said in the e-mailed statement.
NDP MP Olivia Chow, who is her party’s transport critic, said Wednesday that the TSB
revelations should be a “wake-up call” for the federal government.
“We have to end years of federal neglect and mismanagement when it comes to the
transportation of dangerous goods,” she said in an e-mailed statement.
Ms. Chow called for heightened testing and documentation requirements for dangerous goods
and more spot checks and safety inspections by federal regulators.
Earlier this summer, the Transportation Safety Board issued two other safety advisory letters
related to the crash in Lac-Mégantic. The board called for more detailed rules on the number of
brakes that must be set on parked freight trains and a halt to the practice of leaving trains hauling
dangerous goods unattended on a main track.
September 21, 2013 - Off the Rails: How a Lack of Oversight
Doomed Lac-Megantic
by Roger Bybee
Firefighters inspect the smoldering wreckage of a freighter carrying crude oil that derailed into
Lac-Megantic, Quebec. (François Laplante-Delagrave / AFP / Getty)When a runaway train
slammed into the small Quebec town of Lac-Megantic in July, incinerating the city’s core and
killing 47 people, it may have marked the end of the line for the perilous, profit-maximizing
model of railroading that has enthralled corporate and government officials across North America
and the globe.
The principal proponent of this laissez-faire template for railroading—raising income while
minimizing maintenance costs, resisting safety regulations, and fighting unions and adequate
staffing—has been, fittingly enough, none other than Edward Burkhardt, owner of the Montreal,
Maine, and Atlantic (MM&A) railway whose train decimated Lac-Megantic this summer.
Burkhardt—who also owns MM&A’s parent company, Illinois based Rail World Inc., which
controls rail lines in the U.S. and Poland in addition to several hundred miles of MM&A track in
Canada—was a pioneer in recognizing the profit-generating possibilities of rail deregulation
made available by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. The act permitted the formation of non-rail
holding companies by rail corporations, who could then use the rationale that the rail lines had
77
“new” owners to tear up existing union contracts.
Burkhardt was among the first to use this loophole in the Staggers Act to try to eliminate rail
unions, which also facilitated reducing track maintenance and cutting rail-crew sizes to a
minimum. Burkhardt has long been pressing for one-man crews and radio-directed unmanned
trains.
He began actively employing this approach in the 1980s with the Wisconsin Central Railroad,
ferociously resisting unionization efforts and keeping maintenance costs at a minimum. After
buying up 2,700 miles of Soo Line track, Burkhardt used the newly formed Wisconsin Central
Railroad to apply his model of profit maximization: fighting unionization, slashing crew size and
skimping on track maintenance.
As doctrines of what might be branded “free-market fundamentalism” took root among corporate
leaders and media elites in the English-speaking world, Burkhardt gained more opportunities for
revenue even while his companies’ reputations suffered.
“Wisconsin Central—which also took advantage of privatization to acquire rail operations in
countries such as Britain, Australia and New Zealand—racked up a questionable safety record,”
noted Philip Mattera, Research Director and the Director of the Corporate Research Project
at Good Jobs First.
But despite several near-disasters at Wisconsin Central, Burkhardt’s influence continued to grow.
After being chosen as “Railroader of the Year” in 1999 by Railway Age magazine, his rail empire
further extended globally. The World Bank, notorious for promoting and enforcing policies that
elevate profits above human needs, repeatedly used him as a consultant for their pro-privatization
maneuvers, eventually anointing him as the head of privatized railroads in Estonia and Poland as
well as Honorary Consul for New Zealand at Chicago.
A growing danger
The social costs—both to community health and to workers’ living standards and safety—of
Burkhardt’s cost-cutting model were ignored by his admirers despite dangerous accidents in the
1990s that foreshadowed the Lac-Megantic catastrophe. On March 4, 1996, a derailment of a
petroleum-laden train in Weyauwega, Wis. set off a fire that blazed for two weeks and forced
3,000 residents from their homes. Only the actions of the conductor, who uncoupled the cars
carrying chemicals and propane, prevented the fire from spreading even further. He was part of a
two-man crew—at a time when several rail companies, including Wisconsin Central, were
experimenting with cutting crew teams down to single members.
The next year, a derailment in Fond du Lac killed two workers when a Wisconsin Central freight
train veered off the tracks and crashed into a factory.
According to Craig Peachy, legislative director for the Wisconsin Transportation Division of
the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers Union (SMART), understaffing and poor
maintenance clearly led to both crashes.
The mounting list of accidents moved even conservative Republican legislators. Wisconsin
Central’s practices prompted Rep. Gov. Tommy Thompson to sign a bill in 1997 mandating twoman crews. “I think it was the only law mandating two-man crews in the nation,” Peachy told In
78
These Times.
However, the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by federal judges, who determined that
the Interstate Commerce Act required the crew size to be standardized equally throughout all
states.
Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic’s decline
Burkhardt’s 2003 purchase of MM&A, then facing financial troubles, was conducted in his
typical style: by pressuring Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen union members
to accept pay cuts between 25 and 40 percent. Claiming that he was seeking to “improve safety
and efficiency,” Burkhardt also sought in 2010 to reduce MM&A’s crew size from two workers
to one.
That step led veteran engineer Jarod Briggs to quit MM&A. He told the Toronto Star, “If you
have two people watching, you can catch a mistake. It was all about cutting, cutting, cutting. It’s
just an example of putting company profits ahead of public safety.”
MM&A also apparently had no regular crews of its own to maintain its tracks, relying instead on
contractors, SMART’s James Stem told In These Times.
These cost-cutting practices have arguably resulted in dangerous lapses in safety. According to
the Toronto Globe & Mail, MM&A reported more accidents than 93% of the 288 small rail lines
between 2009 and 2012. The crash at Lac-Megantic is just the latest tragedy.
Roy LaFontaine, a Lac-Megantic contractor who frequently worked for MM&A to perform
maintenance work, told local reporters that the tracks should have been changed a century ago.
LaFontaine, who suffered the loss of his son, two daughters-in-law, and an employee in the July
explosion and fire, cited incidents like derailments and subsequent fuel spills as evidence that
MM&A frequently left stretches of track without vital upkeep.
A full-scale Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation of what caused the LacMegantic disaster is underway, but another failure of maintenance appears to be the culprit.
MM&A had lined up 72 tank cars loaded with oil on a siding located seven miles from LacMegantic, held in place by the locomotive’s air brakes. In line with MM&A policy, the train’s
engineer kept the engine running to maximize the brakes’ power as a safety measure and then left
the train unattended, also part of MM&A procedures.
But when part of the locomotive caught fire, local volunteer firefighters and MM&A workers
summoned to the scene decided to shut off the locomotive’s engine to minimize the possibility of
the fire spreading or an explosion. However, shutting off the engine weakened the hold of the
brakes. Without any MM&A worker remaining behind to monitor the situation—again in line
company policy with minimizing costs—eventually, the unmanned train got rolling, building
momentum and reaching a peak speed of 63 miles an hour as it headed downhill toward LacMegantic’s downtown, filled with Saturday night revelers.
The ensuing disaster instantaneously transformed Burkhardt from rail-industry legend
into Canada’s leading villain. Burkhardt’s four-day delay in visiting the Lac-Megantic
site shocked local residents who had lost friends and relatives in the close-knit community of
6,000. Burkhardt then deepened public fury by first attempting to blame the volunteer
firefighters, then singling out the engineer for supposedly not setting the brakes properly on the
79
unmanned train. In reality, as the president of Transportation Safety Canada told NPR, it’s deeply
unlikely that a single operator is solely to blame for the crash.
The stunning losses at Lac-Megantic have ignited a fierce backlash by public officials, the media,
and citizen groups against lax regulation of railroads. The elite consensus behind profitmaximizing, safety-minimizing railroad deregulation has gone up with the flames of LacMegantic.
They’ve also shed light on the ban via railroads through populated areas. Crude oil, extracted
through environmentally devastating “fracking” and then carried by railcars throughout North
America, has been found to have a uniquely high content of volatile organic compounds. The
train that exploded in Lac-Megantic was transporting this deadly cargo.
But catalyzed first by the Lac-Megantic tragedy and further stoked by Burkhardt’s arrogance,
momentum has built in both Canada and the U.S. for the establishment of a standard of two-man
crews and re-examining railroad safety. For now, the Canadian government—sensitive to
widespread public outcry—has imposed a moratorium that bans one-man crews on
trains carrying hazardous cargo like crude oil. For its part, the U.S. Federal Railway
Administration has issued new rules requiring that railcars containing hazardous materials must
be attended at all times.
Further, Maine Rep. Mike Michaud, a staunch pro-worker progressive, introduced
legislation after Lac-Megantic’s horrors that would ban one-man crews altogether. The rail
industry is predictably opposed, framing it as an unnecessary measure aimed at protecting jobs
rather than improving safety. As Burkhardt explained to the Portland Press Herald, a one-person
crew is actually safer because it eliminates the distracting presence of another person.
Michaud’s spokesperson Ed Gilman countered by stressing the need to address obvious dangers
to public safety. “We hope to focus more attention on the need to increase safety,” he said.
“That’s why the congressman recently requested a hearing into rail safety, including an
examination of specific issues such as crew size, tank car design, and insurance requirements."
Both Gilman and SMART’s James Stem see the potential for bi-partisan support even in a highly
polarized Congress where Republicans have almost reflexively done the bidding of big industry.
Stem stated, “We expect to have many Republican co-sponsors and the original sponsor
Congressman Michaud is also working on getting several Republicans on the bill.”
“The safety of the public,” he continued, “Is not a partisan issue.”
Similar legislation is being introduced in Canada, where the New Democratic Party is calling for
a minimum of two crew members on trains carrying dangerous goods, and a deadline for retiring
the oft-cited DOT-111 tank cars, the model used on the MM&A train. Party member
and Canadian lawmaker Olivia Chow said municipalities should also know when and where
dangerous goods are traveling by rail through their towns.
As Canada’s Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of the July 6 night of horror in LacMegantic unfolds and more is learned about the rail industry’s practices, a long-delayed debate
on the rail industry’s fixation on maximum profits—without regard to public health or worker
safety—will finally be unavoidable on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border.
80
November 8, 2013 - Train carrying crude oil explodes, spills oil into
Alabama wetlands
Train cars derail, explode in Pickens County,Alabama
BY SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA
November 8, 2013, 12:52 p.m.
A 90-car train derailed and exploded in rural Alabama early Friday morning, spilling its crude oil
cargo into the surrounding wetlands and igniting a fire so intense that officials said it will take 24
hours to burn out. No one was injured.
The train was crossing a timber trestle above a wetland near Aliceville late Thursday night when
20 railcars and two of three locomotives derailed. Earlier reports said fewer cars had derailed.
On Friday morning, about 10 train cars were burning, according to a statement from train owner
Genesee & Wyoming.
Emergency responders decided to let the cars burn out. Though the bridge is also burning, the fire
is contained, officials said.
Scott Hughes, spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, told
the Los Angeles Times that the oil has been spilled into the wetlands area.
“Typically wetlands are a sanctuary for a variety of different types of aquatic species, so once
we’re able to get in and assess environmental impacts, we’ll certainly look at any impacts to
aquatic organisms and other types of wildlife,” Hughes told the Los Angeles Times.
There are extensive wetlands near Aliceville, according to the state’s Forestry Commission
website.
Hughes said that it’s difficult to determine how much oil has been spilled, because responders
can’t get close to the fire. Hughes said his agency checked the drinking water wells in the area,
and said there will be no effect on the water.
“The area’s pretty rural, there’s not a whole lot around,” Alabama Emergency Management
spokesperson Yasamie August told the Los Angeles Times.
One family was evacuated, but has already been returned home, she said
The Environmental Protection Agency has one person on scene who is overseeing the clean-up
and monitoring of air quality to assess the impact of the crude oil spill, regional Environmental
Protection Agency spokesperson James Pinkney told The Times.
The train was en route from Amory, Miss., to Walnut Hill, Fla., according to the Genesee
statement.
The use of rail to move oil amid rapidly expanding U.S. production is coming under growing
regulatory scrutiny after the horrific explosion of an oil train in Canada's Lac-Megantic, Quebec,
killed at least 42 residents in July, The Times reported in September. A train with 72 tank cars
hauling crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale fields rolled downhill into the city and
81
ignited an inferno that destroyed half of downtown.
Don Hartley, a regional coordinator for the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, told
The Times that the train in Alabama likely originated in North Dakota.
The Times also reported that railroads are carrying 25 times more crude oil than they were five
years ago. And though railroads have improved their safety in recent years, moving oil on tank
cars is only about half as safe as in pipelines.
December 30, 2013 - Mile-long train carrying crude oil derails,
explodes in North Dakota
Monday Dec 30, 2013 2:37 PM
By Daniella Silva, NBC News
A mile-long train carrying crude oil has derailed and exploded, triggering a "giant fireball" after
colliding with another train in North Dakota on Monday.
A mile-long train carrying crude oil exploded in Casselton, North Dakota near the homes of
2,000 residents who officials are "strongly recommending" evacuate the area as a forecasted shift
in the wind could send hazardous smoke over the town.
The Cass County Sheriff's Office said on Monday night that it was "strongly recommending" that
residents in the town of Casselton and anyone living five miles to the south and east evacuate to
shelters set up in Fargo, which is about 25 miles away. Casselton has about 2,400 residents.
The sheriff's office said the National Weather Service was forecasting a shift in the winds that
would push the plume of smoke down, possibly posing a health risk. Earlier, authorities had
advised nearby residents to shelter inside their homes.
The freight train carrying crude oil hit another train hauling grain that had derailed on Monday
afternoon, causing an explosion and sending flames shooting more than 100 feet into the air. No
injuries were immediately reported.
Authorities said local emergency crews responding to reports of a derailment discovered the oil
train burning, with up to 10 cars fully engulfed.
“There was an explosion, where a car let loose and there was a giant fireball, hundreds of feet in
the air,” said Assistant Chief Gary Lorenz of the City of Fargo Fire Department, who was in
touch with a crew on the scene.
“It’s burning very strong right now,” he added. “You can see the plume of smoke for 25 miles.”
The collision occurred at a street intersection just before 2:20 p.m., when the westbound BNSF
Railway train carrying grain derailed and was then hit by the eastbound train carrying oil, Cecily
Fong, a public information officer with North Dakota Emergency Services, told
NBCChicago.com. Both trains were owned by BNSF, she said.
Amy McBeth, a spokeswoman for BNSF Railway, confirmed the collision but said she could
provide no additional details.
82
Fong said the train carrying grain was approximately 111 cars long and crews were able to get the
unaffected cars separated from the burning wreckage and moved out of the way.
Fong said the Federal Aviation Administration was putting flight restrictions in place over the
area due to the smoke.
Kevin Thompson, a Federal Railroad Administration spokesman, told NBC News that the agency
was sending investigators to the scene.
"The Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration have investigative teams en route to North Dakota and will work in concert with
the National Transportation Safety Board, the lead investigator, to ascertain all the relevant facts
that may have contributed to the accident," he said.
October 22, 2013 - The Lac-Mégantic Disaster
Where Does the Buck Stop?
Author(s): Bruce Campbell
October 22, 2013
1.08 MB56 pages
This study examines the Lac-Mégantic disaster, and points the finger at corporate negligence and
regulatory failure as root causes of the tragedy. According to the study, the evidence to date
suggests a flawed regulatory system, dangerous cost-cutting corporate behavior, and
responsibility extending to the highest levels of corporate management and government policymaking. The study also points to several other flaws in the regulatory system, and highlights
some remaining questions in the wake of the accident.
Find the study here:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/201
3/10/Lac-Megantic_Disaster.pdf
January 1, 2014 - Crude-Oil Impurities Are Probed in Rail Blasts
Fiery Accidents Attract Scrutiny From Regulators, Industry
By RUSSELL GOLD and LYNN COOK
Jan. 1, 2014 8:13 p.m. ET
After three fiery accidents involving trains carrying crude oil out of North Dakota's Bakken
Shale, regulators and industry officials are trying to figure out why the oil is exploding.
Crude is flammable, but before being refined into products such as gasoline it is rarely implicated
in explosions.
83
Yet earlier this week, when a BNSF Railway Co. train hauling 104 tank cars filled with Bakken
crude struck another train, some of the cars exploded one after the other, releasing fireballs that
blazed several stories above the frozen prairie.
"Crude oil doesn't explode like that," said Matthew Goitia, chief executive of Peaker Energy
Group LLC, a Houston company that is developing crude-by-rail terminals.
The blast in Casselton, N.D., 25 miles west of Fargo, is just the latest explosion involving crude
pumped out of the Bakken. Federal investigators and railroad and energy-company officials are
probing whether additives to the oil or mislabeling of the liquid contributed to the series of
explosions
In November, a train carrying crude from the Bakken to the Gulf Coast derailed near Aliceville,
Ala. Eyewitnesses reported a fire in one tank car appeared to spread to the neighboring car,
causing explosions. Last summer, a runaway oil train that originated in North Dakota exploded in
Quebec, killing 47 people and incinerating part of the town of Lac Mégantic.
The energy industry is relying on railroads to ship North Dakota's rapidly increasing oil output—now
nearly 750,000 barrels a day, according to state data—to refineries on the East, West and Gulf coasts.
Crude production has taken off so quickly that pipelines have yet to be built to serve much of the
Bakken.
Even before the latest accident, two government agencies—the Federal Railroad Administration
and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration—launched a joint investigation
they call the "Bakken Blitz" to better understand what impurities might be in the crude and
whether it is being handled properly. The government wants to make sure hazardous liquids are
labeled accurately and transported in appropriately sturdy tank cars.
The railroad agency found during a spot inspection some crude oil that became combustible at a
temperature so low it should have been placed in the most secure rail cars with additional safety
features, but the crude was mislabeled and loaded into cars made for less-flammable liquids,
according to a letter the agency sent this summer to the American Petroleum Institute, the oil
industry's main federal lobbying group.
"Liquid crude oil is extremely difficult to ignite," API spokesman Brian Straessle said, "but the
same property that makes it such an excellent source of energy means it is possible that rail
accidents caused by human error, track defects, trains running into each other at very high speeds,
or other rail issues could cause ignition."
The energy industry has been reluctant to discuss publicly what might be causing the problem. It
is possible, experts say, that unusually large amounts of naturally occurring and highly flammable
petroleum products such as propane and ethane are coming out of the ground with the Bakken
crude. Last March, Tesoro Logistics TLLP +0.81% LP reported the Bakken crude it was
transporting by rail was increasingly volatile. The San Antonio company didn't respond to a
request for comment.
Another possibility is that impurities are being introduced during hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking. That process involves pumping chemicals or other additives along with water and sand
into a well to free more fossil fuels. One such additive is hydrochloric acid, a highly caustic
material, which federal investigators suspect could be corroding the inside of rail tank cars,
weakening them.
84
Oil from fracked wells can also be laced with benzene and other volatile and highly flammable
organic compounds.
Enbridge Energy Partners EEP -1.19% LP threatened in May to shut down a North Dakota rail
facility operated by the company because there was too much hydrogen sulfide, a potentially
deadly and corrosive gas, in the crude being loaded there. The Houston company didn't respond
to a request for comment.
At a November meeting of the Crude Oil Quality Association, a group of energy officials focused
on maintaining standardized grading for crude, members said the industry needed to do a better
job sampling and characterizing crude oil in rail cars.
Some railroad officials and federal investigators are also concerned that the use of so-called unit
trains—mile-long strings of rail cars carrying crude oil—is contributing to the severity of
accidents. Data from the U.S. Department of Transportation show that in 2012, 1,775 unit trains
laden with crude oil were dispatched, up from just 207 two years earlier.
About 70% of crude transported in the U.S. by railroad is now carried on oil-exclusive unit
trains, rather than on trains with mixed loads, according to federal statistics. Last month, National
Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Deborah Hersman warned that "a more significant
hazard results when the entire train is assembled with only crude oil."
A spokesman for the NTSB declined to say Wednesday whether the crude in the latest incident
had other material mixed into it, but added that the regulator intends to investigate that question.
Existing tank-car designs must be improved to prevent fire from spreading from one tanker to a
neighboring tanker, said Jim Rader, a former director of the railroad agency's Hazardous
Materials Division and now a compliance officer for a private rail company.
"It's like throwing an aerosol can into a fireplace," he said. "Regulations were drafted for freight
trains with box cars and a couple tank cars, not really for an entire train of tank cars."
A spokeswoman for the Association of American Railroads said stringing crude-oil tank cars
together reduces risk because unit trains "require less handling, eliminate the need for switching
in rail yards and often spend less time unattended."
In a written statement, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration said: "There is no
evidence that unit trains are less safe than mixed freight trains."
Federal regulators, railroad officials and some in the energy industry agree that the design of tank
cars needs to be improved to make them safer. But switching to sturdier tank cars—ones that
would take longer to catch fire and include larger pressure-relief valves and other features to cut
the risk of a breach—might cost energy companies $1 billion or more, according to the American
Petroleum Institute, which opposes proposals to upgrade all existing tank cars too quickly.
—Betsy Morris and Ben Kesling contributed to this article.
January 23, 2014 NTSB calls for tougher standards on trains
carrying crude oil
Published: January 23, 2014
85
WASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board has issued a series of
recommendations to the Department of Transportation to address the safety risk of transporting
crude oil by rail. In an unprecedented move, the NTSB is issuing these recommendations in
coordination with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
Crude oil shipments by rail have increased by more than 400 percent since 2005, according to the
Association of American Railroad's Annual Report of Hazardous Materials. The NTSB is
concerned that major loss of life, property damage and environmental consequences can occur
when large volumes of crude oil or other flammable liquids are transported on a single train
involved in an accident, as seen in the Lac Megantic, Quebec, accident, as well as several
accidents the NTSB has investigated in the U.S.
"The large-scale shipment of crude oil by rail simply didn't exist 10 years ago, and our safety
regulations need to catch up with this new reality," says NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman.
"While this energy boom is good for business, the people and the environment along rail
corridors must be protected from harm."
The NTSB issued three recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the first would require expanded
hazardous materials route planning for railroads to avoid populated and other sensitive areas.
The second recommendation to FRA and PHMSA is to develop an audit program to ensure rail
carriers that carry petroleum products have adequate response capabilities to address worst-case
discharges of the entire quantity of product carried on a train.
The third recommendation is to audit shippers and rail carriers to ensure that they are properly
classifying hazardous materials in transportation and that they have adequate safety and security
plans in place.
“[The Association of American Railroads] is in full agreement with the safety boards’
recommendations today, as they align with our previous calls for increased federal tank car safety
standards as well as the work the industry is undertaking with our customers and the
Administration in an environment of shared responsibility for the safe movement of America’s
energy products," says AAR President and CEO Ed Hamberger. "Through these efforts and more,
railroads are doing all they can to make a safe rail network even safer.”
The NTSB has investigated accidents involving flammable liquids being transported in DOT-111
tank cars, including the Dec. 30, 2013, derailment in Casselton, N.D., and the June 19, 2009,
derailment in Cherry Valley, Ill.. After the Cherry Valley accident, the NTSB issued several safety
recommendations to PHMSA regarding the inadequate design and poor performance of the DOT111 tank cars. The recommendations include making the tank head and shell more puncture
resistant and requiring that bottom outlet valves remain closed during accidents. Although
PHMSA initiated rulemaking to address the safety issue; it has not issued any new rules.
86
"If unit trains of flammable liquids are going to be part of our nation's energy future, we need to
make sure the hazardous materials classification is accurate, the route is well planned, and the
tank cars are as robust as possible," Hersman says.
The NTSB and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada issued these important safety
recommendations jointly because railroad companies routinely operate crude oil unit trains in
both countries and across the U.S.-Canada border.
Oil Boom Raises Safety Concerns for Whistleblower Railworker
BY Kari Lydersen
With trains transporting much of the oil from North Dakota's shale, some railroad workers say
the law isn't doing enough to protect whistleblowers. (Ron Reiring / Wikimedia Commons)
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has triggered an oil boom in North Dakota: The relatively
new technology has made vast reserves of oil previously locked up in the state's Bakken shale
formations accessible to drillers. However, there aren’t enough pipelines in the region to
transport this immense quantity of oil to other states to be refined into gasoline. So instead,
companies have chosen to transport the highly flammable and toxic crude oil by railroad. This
has led to some headline-grabbing disasters, including the explosion of a train carrying Bakken
oil in Lac-Mégantic, Québec that killed 47 people in July 2013.
Because Bakken oil is more combustible and corrosive than traditional crude, the federal
government has warned companies about the risks of shipping it by train. The industry has also
been under public and Congressional pressure to develop new safety procedures.
In addition to instituting speed restrictions and rerouting trains around populated areas, railroad
workers and their lawyers say the federal government should step up its efforts to combat what
they call another serious threat to rail safety: the retaliation against whistleblowers by managers
and executives in the industry.
As one of the biggest transporters of oil in the country, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation (BNSF) has been hugely impacted by the Bakken boom—which, some advocates
say, could in turn be leading to increased struggles between railworkers and management.
One BNSF worker, Curtis Rookaird, has spent the last four years embroiled in a conflict that his
lawyer, Bill Jungbauer, says began with Rookaird voicing safety concerns. What may at first
appear a dispute between a conductor and his supervisor, Jungbauer says, is actually a symbol of
much deeper and more troubling issues throughout the railroad and, by extension, the oil
transport industry.
On Feb. 23, 2010, Rookaird was assigned to move tanker train cars—part of the vast network
that carries crude oil from the Bakken all over the country—to different tracks in the Washington
state BNSF rail yard where he worked. Rookaird set about doing tests on the cars’ brakes, a
87
procedure required by federal law, he tells In These Times. (A federal investigator quoted in court
proceedings last year agreed with this assessment.)
Rookaird was also checking for broken axles, damaged wheels or other problems, he tells In
These Times—a necessary precaution, he says, because the cars had been sitting idle for four
days.
Before Rookaird finished the brake tests, he says, his supervisor told him to stop and move on to
another task. The tests were unnecessary at that moment and would be done by a relief crew later
on, BNSF officials stated in federal proceedings later that year.
Rookaird refused to stop the tests, because he thought it was legally and ethically his
responsibility to make sure they were done before he left the cars. He got into a verbal
confrontation with his supervisor about the issue, and the supervisor asked him to leave. Though
it was actually 8:02 p.m., Rookaird clocked out at 8:30 p.m. He had been working more than five
hours, he told OSHA investigators later, and he figured he deserved credit for the daily paid break
that he had yet to take.
A month later, Rookaird was fired over the incident. He “refused to do his assigned tasks ... and
falsely reported the amount of time he worked,” BNSF spokesman Steven Forsberg tells In These
Times. But Rookaird has a different view of the situation.
“I was told someone will test [the cars], someone else will inspect them. But I am not going to
leave not knowing what I left," Rookaird maintains. "[If] you have tank cars there with residue in
them, it could be just as dangerous as tank cars that are loaded. When you set up or take off cars
you have to check them.”
“If you’re hauling oil and other hazardous materials, a simple little derailment can cause a major
explosion,” Jungbauer explains. Although the cars Rookaird was checking weren’t full, he argues
that “it’s only a matter of time, if employees can’t do their jobs without fear of harassment and
intimidation.”
In an April 2013 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), BNSF
wrote that they suspected Rookaird had deliberately tried to reduce efficiency by introducing
what BNSF called "unnecessary" tasks—such as the brake tests. As BNSF attorney Andrea Hyatt
noted in the letter, the company had recently implemented schedule changes that eliminated
numerous overtime hours that had been earning Rookaird an additional $800 a week. Hyatt said
Rookaird was engaged in an intentional work slow-down meant to protest the schedule change
and collect overtime pay.
That was not his motive, Rookaird tells In These Times. Rather, he felt he would be breaking the
law and acting irresponsibly if he did not do the brake tests. And he believes he was retaliated
against for drawing attention to a safety hazard.
In July 2010, Rookaird filed a complaint with the federal government accusing BNSF of
retaliation. In a process outlined by the Federal Railway Act, an arbitration panel considered his
88
case and ruled in BNSF’s favor in July 2011. But then on Sept. 18, 2013, OSHA issued a detailed
report supporting Rookaird and ordering BNSF to pay him more than $110,000 in compensatory
damages and $25,000 in punitive damages and back pay in addition to rehiring him.
Five months later, however, Rookaird says he's still neither been paid nor rehired. BNSF tells In
These Times the company does not plan to reinstate him until a federal judge has reviewed the
case. The company has already appealed OSHA’s decision in federal court, Forsberg says, and a
hearing is scheduled for March.
Meanwhile, Rookaird is in the process of filing his own lawsuit in federal court to try to force
BNSF to follow OSHA’s orders, Jungbauer says.
After losing his railroad job, Rookaird worked for a year and a half driving a truck in oil country
in North Dakota, far away from his family. Now he is driving a fuel truck in Washington, earning
much less than he had at BNSF. Rookaird and his wife Kelly say their house is in foreclosure
proceedings and they are struggling to support the two nine-year-old boys they adopted from
Russia. Kelly says she’s unable to afford necessary eye surgery. They can see firsthand why many
railroad workers could be dissuaded from coming forward with complaints.
“You feel like you should not report these safety problems, even injuries, because you’ll end up
unemployed, driven out of your home, homeless,” says Rookaird.
BNSF’s Forsberg says, however, that the company “has specific policies prohibiting retaliation
against whistleblowers.”
“Employees are both encouraged and required to report safety concerns,” Forsberg adds. “BNSF
provides them with multiple means to do so, including calling a 24-hour employee hotline,
turning in a simple form, or contacting a Division Manager of Safety or a local, union Safety
Assistant. An employee can make any of these reports anonymously. Designated personnel
investigate all safety concerns and take appropriate action until the issue has been resolved.”
But Jungbauer, who testified before Congress regarding the Federal Railroad Safety Act, which
was passed in 1994 and updated in 2007 to protect railroad whistleblowers, says Rookaird’s story
and others like it are symptoms of a much larger threat to workers and the general public. He
feels like Rookaird’s case is a prime example of how the law doesn’t do enough to protect
employees.
“This story is much bigger than some local managers being unfair to some local people,” he says.
“There’s a system-wide attack on workers and workers’ rights. If a company is going to be so vile
against its own workers in way they go after them, what does that mean for the public?”
“I’m glad there’s all this oil in North Dakota, but if they’re going to ship it around the country on
BNSF tracks and if employees can’t report safety concerns without being retaliated against, I’m
worried,” he continues. “And the country should be worried.”
89
February 14, 2014 - Lac-Mégantic victims sue Canadian government
for allegedly failing to regulate MM&A
Published: February 14, 2014
OTTAWA, Ont. – Survivors of the deadliest Canadian rail accident in modern history have added
the federal government to a class-action lawsuit for failing to regulate what it calls North
America's “most-unsafe” railroad, the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway. Forty-seven people
were killed and more than 30 buildings were leveled on July 6, 2013, when an unmanned oil train
derailed and exploded in the small town of Lac-Mégantic.
The derailment forced the railroad into bankruptcy. It was sold at auction to Railroad Acquisition
Holdings LLC in January.
The Attorney General of Canada was named in documents filed in a Quebec courthouse on
Wednesday, the Globe and Mail reports. The filing includes the Canadian government in a
lawsuit from families of the victims because it allegedly did not properly regulate the railroad.
MM&A, RailWorld Inc., the companies that produced the oil in the derailed train, and RailWorld
President Ed Burkhardt are also named as defendants.
While it's likely that it will take months or years for the lawsuits to play out, the railroad at the
center of the tragedy is just weeks away from disappearing. The MM&A will not have insurance
or approval to operate past April 1, according to various reports, and the new operator is expected
to start sometime in mid-March. An operating plan and new name are expected in the coming
days.
FEB. 21, 2014 - To Make Shipping Oil Safer, Railroads Agree to 8
Measures
By JAD MOUAWAD and IAN AUSTEN FEB. 21, 2014
Responding to concerns about the safety of trains carrying oil around the
country, federal regulators on Friday outlined steps to reduce the risk of
rail shipments and bolster confidence in the fast-growing industry.
The Department of Transportation said the major railroads had agreed to
eight voluntary measures one month after the secretary of transportation,
Anthony R. Foxx, met with railroad executives in response to a series of
derailments and explosions involving trains carrying crude oil.
The measures, which did not involve public comments, include lowering speed
90
limits for oil trains in some cities, increasing the frequency of track
inspections, adding more brakes on trains and improving the training of
emergency medical workers. The Department of Transportation said these steps
would be taken quickly and that it was still considering other longer-term
measures.
Still, the announcement fell short of what many analysts and independent
rail experts have said is needed to ensure the safe movement of oil trains;
they have called on the government to quickly retire or ban the use of older
tank cars, known as DOT-111s, that have long been known to rupture in a
crash.
Also, the new measures do not modify current regulations that railroads
must follow to determine whether trains carrying hazardous materials need to
be rerouted from heavily populated areas or environmentally sensitive zones.
Those rules set out 27 criteria the industry can weigh to make this
determination. While the criteria are public, the industry does not make its
routes public.
Fred Millar, an independent rail consultant, said the measures underscored
the fact that rail operators remained secretive about operations involving
hazardous materials despite the recent accidents. He also blamed regulators
for failing to take stronger enforcement measures.
“There is a telling lack of any new reporting and accountability measures,
and federal resource augmentations, that could signal a new federal
determination to reduce risks,” Mr. Millar said.
The administration as well as the oil and rail industries are under
enormous pressure to enhance rail safety after recent episodes drew widespread
attention to the risks of shipping large quantities of crude oil in
unpressurized railcars. The danger was highlighted in July when a runaway train in
Canada destroyed Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.
Oil producers from the Bakken region around North Dakota, which has had a
boom in production, rely on railroads to ship their output. About 10 percent
of the nation’s daily oil production goes by trains, which typically have
80 to 120 tank cars, to refineries across the nation.
The announcement on Friday covered steps that could be taken soon.
Additional issues, like tank car standards and the proper classification of oil,
are being addressed separately, rail and transportation officials said.
For example, regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation, are
91
considering new car rules, including how fast to phase out the older models. But
those rules are not expected before the end of the year and could take years
to be put into effect. Car owners have said there are not enough new cars
in the market, and there is a backlog that will take years to fulfill.
Tank cars built after 2011 have an improved design that includes stronger
hulls and reinforced valves that do not puncture or leak if the train
derails, but a large number of older cars remain in service. The Association of
American Railroads has said the government should require older cars to be
retired and replaced with the new design.
Several rail and oil companies did not wait for these new standards to
become mandatory. On Thursday, BNSF Railway said it planned to move into tank
car ownership and buy up to 5,000 new cars. A BNSF train was involved in a
derailment in North Dakota last December.
This week, Irving Oil, the owner of the Canadian refinery whose oil shi
pment incinerated much of Lac-Mégantic, said that it would scrap its older
cars by the end of April. Irving said it would also require shippers to use
cars that meet the 2011 safety standards by the end of this year.
And Canada’s two largest railways, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific,
are introducing extra charges to discourage the use of older cars. A tariff
filing posted by Canadian Pacific shows that the railway will charge an
extra $325 after March 15 for every car that does not meet current safety
standards. Based on a number of factors, that will increase typical shipment
costs by about 5 percent.
Speaking this week to the Chamber of Commerce in Calgary, Alberta, where
Canadian Pacific is based, E. Hunter Harrison, the rail line’s chief
executive, urged shippers and rail lines to swiftly remove older cars.
“Most generally nobody quibbles with that they’re more dangerous; that
they’re not equipped to haul this commodity,” Mr. Harrison said. “So what
should we do with them? Stop them tomorrow. Don’t wait to study. We know the
facts.”
Mr. Harrison added: “You know what it comes down to, and I hate to tell you
this, the almighty dollar. Who’s going to pay for this?”
92
February 25, 2014 - U.S. Issues Emergency Testing Order to Crude
Oil Rail Shippers
Move by Transportation Department Response to Crude-by-Rail Accidents
U.S. NEWS Updated February 25, 2014, 7:34 p.m. ET
Federal regulators issued emergency rules Tuesday requiring extensive tests on crude oil moving
by rail, concluding the system had become "an imminent hazard to public health and safety and
the environment."
The order is aimed at operations in one of the U.S.'s booming oil fields, the Bakken Shale in
North Dakota, where production has far outpaced the availability of pipelines to move crude to
refineries.
In just a few years, hundred-car trains full of Bakken oil have started moving through major
North American cities—and been involved in several explosive accidents.
The Transportation Department said the order is aimed at Bakken crude but will cover shipments
from anywhere. While oil is classified as a hazardous material, it isn't generally linked to
explosions. But Bakken crude is more volatile than other oils and is more likely to emit
flammable gases, as The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week.
The order will require companies to test each batch of crude for an array of characteristics, from
the temperature at which it boils to the percentage of flammable gases trapped in the oil and the
vapor pressure, which is created when crude emits gases that can build up inside railcars.
Previously, federal rules didn't require that crude be tested as extensively; indeed it only required
that crude be properly classified and didn't spell out in any detail how often to test the crude.
The testing requirement goes into effect immediately with a stiff penalty for noncompliance.
"Any time the government is talking about $175,000 per incident per day in fines, they're pretty
serious," says Kevin Book, an energy analyst at ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
The American Petroleum Institute, which has been representing the energy industry in its
negotiations with the government, didn't respond to requests for comment. The trade association
hadn't yet provided data that the DOT had requested in order to reach a voluntary agreement.
The crude-by-rail industry was almost nonexistent five years ago, but it has boomed along with
petroleum output. In 2008, a train of 100 tankers full of crude departed a terminal in North
Dakota once every four days, according to rail-industry statistics. By 2013, a unit train was
departing every 21/2 hours.
The oil industry embraced train transport because it was quicker and easier to build rail
infrastructure than it was to lay pipelines. In addition, even though moving oil by trains was more
expensive than via pipelines, the industry could ship the crude to wherever prices were highest.
93
Crude has been heading to refineries from the Canadian province of New Brunswick to
Washington state, and south to the Gulf Coast, home to the biggest cluster of refineries in the
U.S.
Stephen H. Brown, vice president for federal government affairs at refiner Tesoro Corp., said
refiners applaud the new requirements. "I don't think there's anyone in the industry who doesn't
want to move this product as safely and efficiently as possible," he said.
Eric Eissenstat, senior vice president of Bakken oil producer Continental Resources Inc., said in a
statement that the company was still studying the order but agreed "that all crude oil should be
properly tested, classed and transported safely."
But the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents chemical companies
and refiners, said the order "leaves several questions unanswered," including exactly how often
crude should be tested and whether the new rules would affect the industry's ability to transport
oil.
Last week, the American Association of Railroads agreed to a number of voluntary safety
measures for transporting crude by rail, including lowering some speed limits, redirecting trains
around high-risk areas, examining tracks more frequently and improving braking mechanisms.
The group said Tuesday that it supports the DOT's order.
Proper testing and classification is essential in ensuring that first responders are able to react
safely after an accident, spokeswoman Holly Arthur said in a statement. "The safe movement of
crude oil by rail is shared responsibility among all stakeholders in the energy supply chain," she
said.
Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, said he wished
the government had gone further. "Merely requiring testing but not having an action plan or a
requirement to release the testing data publicly still places our communities at risk," he said.
Federal regulators have been investigating the makeup of Bakken crude after accidents involving
exploding tank cars—including one in Quebec in July that killed 47 people and leveled a town.
The DOT said preliminary estimates of costs at the Quebec accident exceed $1 billion.
Derailments, which are typically caused by track problems or equipment failure, were found to
have triggered the accidents.
The emergency order also prohibits moving crude using certain railcars that are suitable only for
less hazardous materials. The American Association of Railroads said it would affect 1,100 tank
cars, known as AAR-211s, or about 3% of the total crude-oil fleet.
Several companies, including Tesoro and Irving Oil Corp., have said they would phase out older
railcars and use upgraded cars with thicker shells and other new protective measures.
94
In a speech last week, E. Hunter Harrison, chief executive of Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., said
companies should disclose more about the crude they were transporting. "I think that'd be good
public relations on their part," he said. "It's the unknown that worries people."
A U.S. House subcommittee is expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss passenger and freight
rail safety.
February 27, 2014 - Poorly Regulated, High-Speed 'Bomb Trains'
Are One Crash Away from Devastating Towns in NYC Suburbs
By Cliff Weathers [1] / AlterNet [2]
February 27, 2014
In the northern suburbs of New York City, endless strings of black tanker cars have become
commonplace sightings at railroad crossings. They move along briskly with red hazmat placards
reading “1267” — indicating crude oil — affixed to them. And while the rail and oil industries
assure the public that these “virtual pipelines” are not much of a hazard, they're behemoths of
kinetic energy flush with vast amounts of potential, explosive energy. An impact with a tanker car
can spark a catastrophic detonation, annihilating whatever is nearby.
One such explosion occurred last summer in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, a tiny lakeside village of
less than 6,000 people. On July 6, a 74-car train carrying Bakken formation [3] crude oil ran
away and derailed, resulting in a massive explosion of multiple tanker cars. The blast radius was
more than a half mile in diameter. Forty-seven people were killed, and 30 buildings — about half
the village's downtown — were leveled.
The Lac-Mégantic train was destined for the same New Brunswick refinery that is sometimes the
destination of the oil that travels through the Hudson Valley counties of Rockland, Orange,
Ulster, and Greene. Other trains in those Hudson Valley communities go to refineries along the
U.S. East Coast.
Besides explosions, there have been several significant spills across the U.S. in the past six years.
Together, these events have spilled more than 3 million gallons of oil, polluting wetlands,
aquifers and residential areas, and the spills are not always cleaned up adequately, if at all. What's
even more unsettling is that the volume of crude oil moving through the country by rail increases
unabated, raising the odds of more tragedies in the future.
In six short years, the number of rail cars loaded with crude oil has increased 40-fold, and
industry analysts predict that the amount of oil-by-rail will quadruple over the next decade. Oilby-rail shipments through densely populated areas including suburban New York, Philadelphia,
95
New Orleans, Albany, NY, Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo, are expected to
increase significantly.
The shale oil boom has gained momentum with the rise in global oil prices. Horizontal drilling
and hydraulic fracturing, once considered expensive extraction technologies are now relatively
affordable for the oil industry. But the boom has not been accompanied with a corresponding
expansion and upgrade of our nation's transportation infrastructure. Oil production often comes
from fields that don't have direct access to waterways and pipelines. Constructing new pipelines
or converting the existing lines pose headaches for engineers, as this viscous, highly corrosive
crude needs great amounts of pressure to push through systems without compromising them.
The rapid growth in Albany and the region to its south is of particular concern to local
environmental groups. With little public awareness and input, the Port of Albany oil terminals are
quietly expanding capacity to accept crude oil shipments by rail for transfer to river vessels. They
are now permitted to handle 2.8 billion gallons per year, but the expansion means much more
crude oil will travel through the Lower Hudson Valley.
The oil moving through the area is often the same Bakken crude from the shale formation located
beneath Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Production rates are estimated to
be nearly 500,000 barrels per day, and crude oil is shipped via rail to refineries located
throughout Canada and the United States. While oil-by-rail has increased six-fold since 2011,
according to American Association of Railroads, shipments from the Bakken region have jumped
exponentially in that time.
This great increase in oil-by-rail has been devastating to the environment. Fully loaded “unit
trains” are made up of 75-100 tanker cars carrying about 30,000 gallons each, and last year alone,
more than 1.15 million gallons of oil were spilled from them in rail accidents and derailments,
which is greater than the four previous decades combined.
But what makes the rail transportation of Bakken crude notable is its particular instability due to
high levels of gases and volatile organic compounds trapped in the mix. "Large amounts of vapor
pressure can split the tank, sink the roof and emit (a) flammable gas cloud," the Canadian Crude
Quality Technical Association, an industry-sponsored research group, said in March. Also in
question are the high amount of corrosives found in the fuel, which may affect the integrity of
tanker cars. Oil producers in the Bakken region have reported large amounts of corrosion in tank
cars and "high vapor pressure causing bubbling crude."
Yet it took another disastrous rail-car explosion in Casselton, ND (population 2,470) last
December for federal regulators to finally take notice. A week later, they issued a safety advisory
regarding the rail shipment of Bakken crude.
Not only is this crude uniquely explosive and corrosive, the DOT-111 rail cars that carry it have
their own safety issues, including a tendency to rupture on impact, which makes them
dangerously incompatible for the shipment of such a volatile cargo.
96
National Transportation Safety Board chairperson Deborah Hersman is considering requiring
safety upgrades to the 92,000 existing DOT-111s and New York Senator Chuck Schumer
requested that this class of rail cars be phased out altogether. The Association of American
Railroads has reported that only some 15% DOT-111 cars in use even meet current standards, and
those that do may still require safety upgrades.
Along with evidence that the DOT-111s are unsafe, federal regulators have also discovered that
oil companies have regularly misclassified Bakken crude to make it appear less risky to the
public than it actually is. In response, the Department of Transportation is now requiring
companies moving crude oil by rail to test the volatility of fuel out of the Bakken fields before it
is put in tanker cars.
The department said in a statement it "issued an Emergency Order requiring all shippers to test
product from the Bakken region to ensure the proper classification of crude oil before it is
transported by rail." Some of the more volatile crude oil — categorized as less flammable Group
III products — must now be labeled as Group I or Group II, which require “more robust” cars.
But the order does not necessarily ban the DOT-111s.
The department has also asked the oil and railroad industries to come up with voluntary changes
in the way oil is transported to increase safety. But asking industries to self-regulate is not a
reliable way to assure safety.
In response to DOT statements, the railway industry has given little more than lip service. Jack
Koraleski, CEO of Union Pacific Railroad, told the Associated Press the industry plans to begin
treating crude oil like a hazardous chemical and carefully plan out the safest routes possible using
existing federal rules. Also, in a document recently obtained by the AP, the Association of
American Railroads informed the DOT that it would take on a “wide-ranging voluntary safety
measures” for trains carrying crude oil, including slowing down in densely populated areas, more
thorough track inspection, and ramping up emergency response planning. The document did not
indicate how these changes would be enforced.
While they might sound substantive, these measures may not go far enough. The oil producers
have grossly miscalculated the volatility of crude in the past. What assurances does the public
have that they've changed their ways? Even if retrofitted, there are no guarantees that DOT-111s
would become impact-proof and impervious to the corrosive qualities of Bakken crude.
Rerouting around high-population areas might not be feasible, as transportation regulations rely
on many factors to determine routes for hazardous shipments; once they're all factored in, some
oil-by-rail shipments might not be rerouted at all.
This brings us back to the Hudson Valley, where an expansion of crude-oil transportation is on
the horizon. Global Partners, a major petroleum distributor in the region, already has the capacity
to offload two trains of unrefined oil to river vessels daily, a transfer that can be up to 5 million
gallons of Bakken crude. Now, Global Partners wants to expand its “virtual pipeline” by adding a
thick, heavy crude oil — possibly from the Alberta tar sands — to the mix. This would greatly
increase the number of trains and barges traveling through the valley and on the Hudson River.
97
Also as part of this expansion, Global Partners wants to install up to seven boilers to heat train
cars containing the thicker crude. Global Partners claims this will help the tar-like substance flow
while being transferred from train cars to barges for river transport.
Global Partners' plan will no doubt increase the amount of oil-by-rail traffic through the Lower
Hudson Valley. But in the short time since oil-by-rail first expanded a few years back, the region
already has had two close calls.
Last November, a car-carrier collided into a train hauling empty oil-tanker cars in the New York
City suburb of Clarkstown, NY (population 84,187). The site of the collision, the hamlet of West
Nyack, is a moderately populated area with several schools, one of the nation's largest shopping
malls, and a reservoir system that provides water to Rockland County's 320,000 residents and
also feeds into the Bergen County, NJ watershed. Had the tanker car been filled, it could have
been a catastrophe, not only to the immediate area, but possibly to the regional transportation and
water infrastructure.
And just this week, a train carrying nearly 97 empty DOT-111 tanker cars derailed near Kingston
(population 24,000), in Ulster County. The train was traveling on the same track that runs
through Rockland and Orange Counties.
Local governments and media have allowed residents in the Lower Hudson Valley to remain
blissfully ignorant of the potential calamity. Coverage by local news outlets has been all but
nonexistent, and the four Lower Hudson Valley counties have not publicly disseminated publicsafety alerts, emergency preparedness plans, or evacuation plans for potential rail disasters. A
spokesperson for Rockland County's Department of Fire and Emergency Services said that the
county is reviewing its emergency response protocols with the crude-oil shipments in mind.
To their credit, local, state and federal officials, and first responders have begun to hold spill
exercises in the region. The first drill, held last year Orange County, simulated a non-explosive
spill of 50,000 gallons of heating oil from a five-million gallon storage tank into the Hudson
River. In the scenario, the spill derailed a nearby CSX train. But the drill, co-hosted by Global
Companies, a subsidiary of Global Partners, was in no way a preparation for an explosion
involving a full assemblage of tanker cars brimming with Bakken crude.
The Casselton and Lac-Mégantic explosions did get the attention of New York Governor Andrew
Cuomo. Late last month, he issued an executive order identifying many of the immediate risks in
the transportation of crude oil. As part of the order, Cuomo directed five state agencies to report
on the state’s preparedness to handle a crude oil spill or fire. Cuomo also called for federal
agencies to strengthen regulations for transportation of unrefined petroleum products.
Unfortunately, like the rail industry's list of oil-by-rail modifications, Cuomo's executive order
does not bring about any actual or immediate changes to mitigate the risks of oil-by-rail.
Meanwhile, the expansion of this virtual oil pipeline continues through New York communities
at a brisk pace.
98
UPDATE: Hours after we broke this story, the Journal News, a newspaper serving the Lower
Hudson Valley, reported [4] that Rockland County Officials are beginning to take action. The
Sheriff's Office is now using radar guns to check speeds of CSX trains running through the
county and has requested that the railroad to provide local officials with a daily list of the
hazardous materials aboard the trains. On March 1, it was also reported that New York State and
federal authorities have begun inspecting facilities used to ship oil-by-rail in the state, including
sites in Buffalo and Albany, as well as the rail tracks and the tank cars that carry the crude.
March 1, 2014 - Tank Car Debate Rolls On
While the Association of American Railroads supports requiring older tank cars used to transport
flammable liquids to be retrofitted or phased out, many other stakeholders firmly oppose a
retrofit.
 By Jerry Laws
 Mar 01, 2014
Regulatory action by U.S. and Canadian federal transportation agencies quickly followed the July
2013 fire in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that involved railroad tank cars filled with petroleum crude
oil. Forty-seven people were killed. But both agencies continue to wrestle with the key, and thus
far intractable, issue raised by this incident: whether they should require retrofitting of existing
DOT-111 tank cars to make them more resistant to breaches during derailments. The National
Transportation Safety Board has identified the DOT-111 design's vulnerability several times in
accident investigations during the past 20 years, including in safety recommendations the board
issued in 2012 following the June 2009 derailment of a Canadian National Railway Company
freight train carrying denatured fuel ethanol in Cherry Valley, Ill.
Canadian Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt announced proposed regulatory changes in January
2014 that will require new DOT-111 tank cars to be built with thicker steel and top fitting and
head shield protection. In the United States, as well, DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in
September 2013 asking stakeholders for comments about enhancing standards for DOT-111 tank
cars that are used to transport Packing Group I (materials posing great danger ) and II (medium
danger) hazardous materials. While the Association of American Railroads urged PHMSA to
raise those standards and to require about 78,000 older tank cars used to transport flammable
liquids to be retrofitted or phased out, many other commenters firmly opposed the retrofit.
The American Chemistry Council's comment urged PHMSA to "expedite a federal standard for
new tank cars that carry petroleum and ethanol."
"In general, safety improvements are achieved more efficiently through improving standards for
new cars, in comparison to retrofitting or replacement of cars that are already in service," ACC
Senior Director – Distribution Thomas E. Schick's comment added. "Those existing cars would
have to be cleaned and taken out of service, would have to undergo considerable physical
changes, and would have fewer years of service over which to spread such costs."
99
The comment filed by Lynn Hiser, president of the North American Freight Car Association--its
members are owners, manufacturers, lessors, and lessees of private railcars--said a retrofit may
not be feasible. If PHMSA does order a retrofit, Hiser urged the agency to phase it in over 10
years or more. Hiser pointed out that railroads don't provide tank railcars. Instead, they require
shippers to supply their own tank cars that comply with applicable PHMSA and Federal Railroad
Administration regulations and standards, which allow a 50-year service life for tank cars. This
practice means the considerable cost of retrofitting thousands of older DOT-111 cars would fall
to the railroads' customers rather than the railroads themselves.
The comment from Solvay USA Inc.'s Donna Edminster, manager of transportation safety &
security, asked PHMSA to limit the scope of the proposed improvements to DOT-111tank cars
transporting ethanol and crude oil. Solvay USA mainly uses DOT-111 cars to ship corrosive
materials (sulfuric acid and spent sulfuric acid), and the proposed enhancements in the retrofit
would not increase the safety of those cars, she wrote. "And increasing the statutory weight of the
car to 286,000 [pounds] to allow for the thicker head & shells and half-height shields won’t
necessarily give the shipper the additional payload promised. We already have a fleet of cars that
we run at 286K which were constructed under special permit. However, many of these cars are
under-utilized and not running at 286K due to the fact that some tracks, and in particular bridges
and culverts, cannot handle the increased weight of the cars, nor can the internal track on
customer sites," her comment stated. "So we end up light loading 286K cars. Additionally, while
they may be able to handle the increased weight cars, some major Class 1 railroads historically
have been averse to handling the heavier cars on their lines altogether. Due to this fact alone, we
estimate that 75% of our rail customers are not able to be supplied using 286K cars.
Therefore, it's not just a rail car enhancement issue; it also becomes a rail infrastructure issue."
Freight Rail's Excellent Safety Record
The backdrop for this debate is a freight railroad industry with an excellent safety record and the
sharp increase in crude oil shipments by train from the Bakken oilfields in North Dakota. U.S.
railroads moved 178,000 carloads of crude oil during the first half of 2013; annual crude
shipments from the Bakken region increased from 500 carloads to more than 13,000 and are
expected to grow to 70,000, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a July 22, 2013, letter
asking the FRA and PHMSA administrators to consider including the retrofit or phase-out of
older DOT-111 tank cars in the PHMSA rulemaking.
Speaking in August 2013 during an emergency meeting of FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee prompted by the Lac-Mégantic accident, Federal Railroad Administrator Joe Szabo
said "less than a fraction of 1 percent" of the 2.47 million rail hazmat shipments in 2012 were
involved in a spill.
"Although safety is trending in a very positive direction in the United States, in recent years
we've still seen some very serious accidents," Szabo added. He cited three derailments of trains
carrying ethanol and also the January 2005 chlorine spill when a Norfolk Southern freight train
derailed in Graniteville, S.C.
100
The non-regulatory actions taken by FRA and PHMSA after Lac-Mégantic include:
 Emergency Order No. 28. Issued Aug. 7, 2013, it told the railroads to take steps within 30
days to ensure that trains moving hazardous materials do not move while unattended and
possibly cause a similar disaster.
 A joint safety advisory reinforcing to railroads the importance of properly classifying
Class 3 (flammable and combustible) materials and ensuring that their safety and security
plans address the vulnerabilities cited in the emergency order.
 Audits and unannounced inspections and testing to verify material classification and
packing group assignments by offerors of crude oil for transport.
 A safety alert from PHMSA notifying the public, emergency responders, shippers, and
carriers that the crude being transported from the Bakken region may be more flammable
than traditional heavy crude oil. The alert followed a derailment on Dec. 30, 2013, near
Casselton, N.D., that involved 18 cars in a BNSF train transporting crude oil.
Richard F. Timmons, president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association,
assured Szabo by letter in October 2013 that the association has kept its 455 member railroads
informed about Emergency Order No. 28 and the Rail Safety Advisory Committee meeting and
its deliberations. Most association members that carry hazmats do so "at very low speeds of ten
miles per hour or less, where the risk of unintended release is low," Timmons wrote in the letter,
which FRA has posted at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0670. "It is important to put these actions
in the proper context. The American public deserves to know that securement failures in the US
on main lines are very rare, and FRA's own safety data reveal no correlation between crew size
and safe securement. Nor do the data indicate that securement on main lines is a serious safety
issue," he added.
According to the Association of American Railroads, its members since August 2013 have selfimposed practices to increase the safety of trains moving energy products, including special
speed limits. "We believe it's time for a thorough review of the U.S. tank car fleet that moves
flammable liquids, particularly considering the recent increase in crude oil traffic," AAR
President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger said in November 2013. "Our goal is to ensure that
what we move, and how we move it, is done as safely as possible."
AAR at that time recommended that PHMSA consider requiring these changes for tank cars
moving flammable liquids:
 Increase federal design standards for new tank cars to include an outer steel jacket around
the tank car, thermal protection, full-height head shields, and high-flow capacity pressure
relief valves.
 Require additional safety upgrades to tank cars built since October 2011, when the rail
industry instituted its latest design standards, and include installation of high-flowcapacity relief valves and design modifications to prevent bottom outlets from opening in
an accident.
 Aggressively phase out older-model tank cars used to move flammable liquids that are not
retrofitted to meet new federal requirements.
 Eliminate the current option for rail shippers to classify a flammable liquid with a flash
point between 100 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit as a combustible liquid.
101
The comment period on PHMSA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking closed on Dec. 5.
PHMSA had extended it at the request of several environmental groups.
About the Author
Jerry Laws is Editor of Occupational Health & Safety magazine, which is owned by 1105 Media
Inc
March 02, 2014 - Hawkins Calls for Moratorium on Oil Shipment
By Rail and No Tar Sands Oil in New York
Posted by Ursula Rozum on March 02, 2014 ·
Howie Hawkins called for a moratorium today on oil shipments by train through New York State
following the derailment of a locomotive pulling 97 empty oil cars in Kingston on Tuesday,
February 25.
Hawkins called Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order to identify the immediate risks to New York
communities and waterways from the increase in oil trains “too little, too late.”
“The Governor is rightly concerned about clean-up after the inevitable spill, but what about
preventing spills in the first place?” said Hawkins of Syracuse, through which CSX oil trains
travel.
Hawkins said the moratorium should remain until all safety concerns are addressed and
remedied.
The Green Party's Ursula Rozum noted the growing number of oil train accidents, and the
inadequacy of recently announced federal voluntary safety measures. “Even Chuck
Schumer thinks they don’t go far enough,” Rozum said, Green Party of New York State
Committee member from Syracuse.
More oil spilled in the US from trains in 2013 than from 1975 to 2012 combined. “From Lac
Megantic to North Dakota, from Alabama to Minnesota, and now Ulster County,” said Hawkins,
“oil trains are derailing, spilling, exploding.”
There has been a 400% increase in oil shipments by rail since 2005. Much of this oil comes from
the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and traverses upstate New York. A considerable portion is
offloaded at the Port of Albany (located in the mostly African-American South End) onto ships
102
and barges for the trip down the Hudson to refineries in Philadelphia and Canada.
“Oil trains in New York are a rolling environmental injustice,” said Rozum. “Their route takes
them near Native lands, and within a few feet of a public housing complex in Albany. Why has
the DEC violated its own guidelines for environmental justice assessments when it comes to oil
processing and shipping?”
Railroad workers too are concerned about the dangers of the giant oil trains. “One hundred car
trains are simply too long,” said retired locomotive mechanic and labor activist Jon Flanders.
“They place incredible strain on tracks and locomotives, surely factors in the recent derailments,”
said Flanders.
“Safer oil trains are superior to the building more pipelines in the short term. But we have to stop
building more fossil fuel infrastructure like fracking, pipelines, and tar sands boilers. Every dollar
invested in fossil fuel infrastructure locks us into decades more fossil fuel dependence and
diverts us from urgently needed investment in clean energy,” said Hawkins.
Hawkins also said today that he strongly opposes the apparent plan by a Massachusetts company
to process tar sands oil for transshipment to ships and barges at the Port of Albany.
“No, we don’t know for certain that the oil will be from the Albertan tar sands,” said Hawkins,
“but why else would Global Partners need four giant boilers at its proposed plant?” The boilers
would presumably heat and liquify the sludgy bituminous tar sands oil for ease of handling.
“We don’t know for sure,” said Hawkins, “because the company refuses to answer reasonable
questions about its plans from either citizens or the media. How’s that for transparency?”
“The goop isn’t really even oil, but diluted bitumen, a thick, tar-like substance that takes more
energy to mine, transport, and refine than the final product provides,” said Rozum.
“It’s exactly the wrong stuff at the wrong time,” said Hawkins who’s campaigning on a platform
to completely replace New York’s reliance on dirty fossil fuels by clean renewable energy like
wind and solar by 2030.
The Green Party’s Matt Funiciello, running for Congress in NY's 21st Congressional District,
owns a business in Glens Falls, the Rock Hill Bakehouse, just a few miles from the Canadian
Pacific rail line on which many oil trains travel through the upper Hudson River Valley from the
Bakken Shale oil field via Montreal to Albany.
“It’s bad enough that CSX and Canadian Pacific ship over a billion gallons of fracked crude a
year into the Port of Albany aboard thousands of dangerous outdated rail tankers that run directly
through dozens of New York communities,” said Funiciello. “Now, if Big Oil get its way, upstate
New York will play a major role in exploiting the Canadian tar sands, a move famed climate
scientist James Hansen called ‘game over’ for the climate.”
103
March 3, 2014 - In Dakota Oil Patch, Trains Trump Pipelines
Flexibility of Shifting Crude to Higher Priced Markets Strands Proposed Projects
By ALISON SIDER March 3, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET
Moving North Dakota's oil riches out of state on trains was supposed to be a stopgap solution
until pipelines could be built.
But even as crude gushes from the state's Bakken Shale at a rate of nearly 1 million barrels a day,
some pipeline companies are abandoning proposed projects, and it is becoming clear that rail
transport won't be a temporary phenomenon.
In January, Koch Pipeline Company walked away from a project because of what it said was
tepid interest by local oil producers. A year earlier Oneok Partners OKS +0.15% LP canceled
plans for a $2 billion pipeline from North Dakota to Oklahoma for the same reason.
Rail is almost always a more expensive way to transport crude than pipelines—as much as twice
the price a barrel over similar distances. But in North Dakota's case, rail's greater flexibility to
ferry oil to where it fetches the highest price trumped the economics of pipelines, said energy
experts.
The abandoned pipeline projects could have tied into existing and proposed lines bringing oil to
refiners in Texas and Louisiana, a market already awash in oil from nearby shale fields.
Ethan Bellamy, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said producers want the ability to sell oil
flowing out of the Midwest to the highest bidder—often refineries in Washington state, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania that are only accessible by rail.
"Making a pipeline volume commitment is like getting married. Shipping by rail is like a onenight stand," said Baird's Mr. Bellamy. "Right now I suspect producers would rather stay
bachelors."
In part, the crude produced in North Dakota is a low-sulfur type that is highly prized right now
among East Coast refiners. On average, the state's oil sold for $74 a barrel in January, much less
than the about $104 a barrel that East Coast refineries paid to import overseas oil during the same
month, according to state and federal data. Even with the between $5 and $15 a barrel cost of
shipping crude via train, it still made economic sense to head east.
Greg Garland, chief executive of U.S. refiner Phillips 66, PSX 0.00% said while demand for
Bakken crude is greatest along the East and West Coasts, that's not where proposed pipelines are
headed. "We don't think you'll see pipelines going east and west," he said.
Trains also can reach refineries that pipelines cannot, said Tad True, a vice president at True Cos.,
which operates pipelines in North Dakota and Wyoming. That flexibility means there is little
incentive to build or expand lines to carry oil from North Dakota, Mr. True said. His company
believes new pipeline construction will largely be to connect the network of pipes already in the
ground to rail systems—so they fit together more seamlessly, he added.
104
Train operators including BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Corp. UNP -0.48%moved nearly
three-fourths of all the oil pumped in North Dakota in December, according to the latest state
estimates. That same month, crude oil flowing through pipelines slumped 2%.
The state agency formed to facilitate pipeline development estimates that even after the handful
of new pipelines currently under construction start transporting oil in 2016, well over half of
North Dakota's crude oil shipping capacity will remain on the rails.
One major pipeline company hopes to buck the trend. Enbridge Inc. ENB.T +0.15% is building a
new line that would carry as much as 225,000 barrels of oil a day out of North Dakota when it
goes into service in 2016. Marathon Petroleum Corp. MPC -0.75% , which operates refineries in
Detroit, Mich., Canton, Ohio, and Catlettsburg, Ky., has agreed to help foot the $2.6 billion
construction bill and provide much of the oil in exchange for a 27% stake in Enbridge's North
Dakota pipeline network.
Helping keep hopes alive for more such projects is the congestion and the potential hazards on
rail shipments leaving the area. Oil tanker traffic has stressed parts of the rail system
unaccustomed to hauling such large volumes of crude. In the past year a string of derailments—
one deadly—caused massive explosions.
Last week, the U.S. Transportation Dept. issued new rules requiring that Bakken crude be tested
before it is shipped on trains. The American Association of Railroads also agreed to a number of
voluntary safety measures for transporting crude, such as lowering some speed limits and
redirecting trains around high-risk areas. Still, the new regulations aren't expected to be costly or
create a burden on oil companies that want to rail North Dakota crude, said Wells Fargo WFC 0.58% energy analyst Roger Read.
But in the long run, producers say they would like more pipelines build. "Our philosophy is that
pipelines are the best transportation solution, because it takes traffic off the road and you've seen
the consequences of the burden on the railroad system," Whiting
Petroleum Corp. WLL +0.96% spokesman Jack Ekstrom said.
March 6, 2014 - Canadian Regulators Say Oil in Train Accident Was
as Volatile as Gasoline
Findings Highlight Risks of Shipping Crude by Rail
By CHESTER DAWSON and RUSSELL GOLD Updated March 6, 2014 4:24 p.m. ET
Canadian regulators said the crude oil on a train that derailed in a Quebec town last July and
killed 47 people was as volatile as gasoline, highlighting the potential danger of crude shipments
by rail.
105
The report by Canada's Transportation Safety Board marked the first time that government
officials have reported comprehensive test results on the train's oil, which was traveling from
North Dakota's Bakken Shale formation to a refinery in New Brunswick.
The safety board said the oil had a flash point, the temperature at which a fire can ignite, "similar
to that of unleaded gasoline." The results confirmed a Wall Street Journal analysis published last
month showing that Bakken oil contains more combustible gases than oil from elsewhere. While
crude oil is generally considered hazardous, it isn't usually explosive.
The samples from the Quebec incident were taken from cars that didn't explode at the accident
site, as well as from another train carrying oil of the same origin.
Canadian regulators previously said that the crude was improperly labeled, and was more volatile
and had a lower ignition point than had been indicated by its shippers.
The lab report said the oil tested was no different than the type of light, sweet crude that
increasingly is being shipped from the Bakken on trains crisscrossing the U.S. and Canada. It
found properties "consistent with those of a light, sweet crude oil, with volatility comparable to
that of a condensate or gasoline product."
That highlights the potential risk posed by the boom in crude-by-rail shipments, especially those
that traverse through densely populated areas. Shipments of oil have become controversial in
light of disclosures about lax testing and the potential for another disaster like the one in Quebec.
In response to the accident, regulators in the U.S. and Canada have mandated new testing
requirements for oil transported by rail. U.S. requirements issued Feb. 25 go well beyond
standard flash-point measurements, mandating testing for additional risks such as corrosiveness,
hydrogen-sulfide content and vapor pressure. The U.S. Transportation Departmentwent further
still Thursday, requiring shippers to identify all the hazardous substances in their oil cargo and
test frequently enough to account for how the cargo might change in transit because of
temperature changes and other variables.
The Journal analysis found that oil from North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas had
vapor-pressure readings above 8 pounds per square inch, although Bakken readings reached as
high as 9.7 PSI. Louisiana Light Sweet from the Gulf of Mexico had an average vapor pressure
of only 3.33 PSI.
The Canadian lab report released Thursday said vapor pressure of the oil involved in the July
accident was the equivalent of 9.04 to 9.6 PSI. But it said some volatile gases likely escaped
during testing, meaning the crude may have been even more volatile than the results indicated.
The safety board's analysis concluded that a number of factors contributed to the magnitude of
the explosion, which destroyed several buildings in the town of Lac-Mégantic. "The large
106
quantities of spilled crude oil, the rapid rate of release, and the oil's high volatility and low
viscosity were likely the major contributors to the large post-derailment fireball and pool fire,"
the report said.
The report appeared to rule out chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing for shale oil as a cause for
the explosion, as some people had speculated. "There was no indication that the…crude oil's
properties had been affected by contamination from fracturing-process fluid additives," the report
said.
The safety board released its analysis as part of a larger investigation into the derailment of the
train, operated by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Inc., that careened off the tracks on July 6
after an unexplained brake failure. The railroad filed for bankruptcy after the accident.
Board spokesman Chris Krepski said that the investigation continues and that a final report will
detail the agency's findings.
March 13, 2014 - Surge in Rail Shipments of Oil Sidetracks Other
Industries
Pileups at BNSF Railway Is Causing Delays for Shippers of Goods Ranging From Coal to Sugar
By BETSY MORRIS, JACOB BUNGE and JOHN W. MILLER
March 13, 2014 9:25 p.m. ET
A major snarl in railroad traffic is ricocheting through the supply chains of businesses across the
U.S., causing delays and losses for shippers of goods ranging from coal to sugar.
Many of the problems stem from pileups at BNSF Railway Co. in a critical northern stretch of
the country where it is shipping crude oil from North Dakota's booming Bakken Shale region.
The railroad, one of the biggest in North America, was already taxed by the heavy demand for oil
transport. But its difficulties multiplied when it ran out of locomotives and crew, as a bitter
winter forced it to use smaller trains.
That has caused a ripple effect across the country as shipments have been delayed. Deliveries of
empty grain cars to farmers and grain elevators in the Midwest and Great Plains are running
about two to three weeks late, the railroad says. The chief of a major sugar producer said he likes
to load 50 railcars a day this time of year, but BNSF sometimes brings more than 50 and
sometimes 30.
An executive close to big utility companies says coal-fired power plant inventories are running
much lower than the usual 30 days. "The railroads tell us they aren't serving power plants until
their inventories are in single-digit days," he said.
BNSF isn't the only railroad with capacity problems, but its woes have been aggravated by a big
107
grain harvest and its surging crude business.
The railroad knew it was in trouble when winter hit. "We found ourselves behind the curve," said
Bob Lease, vice president, service design and performance, for BNSF. "Now, we are finding we
can't fill all of the demand" as quickly as usual.
The backlogs could wind up costing shippers hundreds of millions of dollars, says Steve Sharp,
president of Consumers United for Rail Equity, a group representing agriculture companies,
manufacturers and utilities. His group has been pushing for tougher railroad regulation.
Andrew Walmsley, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation,
a trade group for farmers, worries that continued capacity problems could hurt U.S.
competitiveness in the world arena. "Our reliability as a trading partner comes into question
anytime we can't provide the most cost-competitive price in a predictable and timely manner," he
said.
BNSF is scrambling. The railroad is leasing and buying locomotives by the hundreds and hiring
new crews. In mid-February it began building new track on top of frozen snow-covered ground
along its main oil-patch route. It normally wouldn't have attempted such a project until spring.
Mr. Lease says traffic should become more "normalized" by April 1, but he concedes that the
railroad's challenges will extend through 2014. "It takes a while to unravel," he said.
BNSF, a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., BRKB -1.25% invented the business
of carrying crude oil by rail when it launched its first long oil train, essentially a rolling pipeline,
in 2009.
The business has sharply exceeded its expectations. Shipments of crude by rail from North
Dakota rocketed to a peak of 800,000 barrels a day last October from fewer than 100,000 barrels
a day in 2010.
The surge has contributed to a tangle with potentially widespread impact. Larry Stranghoener,
chief financial officer of fertilizer maker Mosaic Co. MOS -1.30% , says that transport problems,
including the crunch in railroad capacity, could spell "a slower season."
"The primary preoccupation of our sales force, our supply chain and our customers frankly is
getting product to them in time for the spring season," he told the Minneapolis-area company's
investors Wednesday. Any delays transporting Mosaic's fertilizer to dealers could cause them to
defer additional orders, he said.
Some shippers, eager to move their products, have opted to use trucks. Trucking rates compare
with rail costs within a 500-mile radius, but beyond that companies can wind up paying four to
five times as much on a per-ton basis, says one shipping official.
At Black Gold Farms, based in Grand Forks, N.D., Chief Executive Gregg Halverson says his
company has had to pay more to hire trucks to transport its potatoes, which it sells to chip
108
makers.
"There's more demand for truck transportation, and that hits us between the eyes," Mr. Halverson
said. "It's not only the actual availability of the trucks, but trucking firms having trouble getting
drivers, because of demand from the oil patch." He declined to estimate how much more he is
paying for trucks.
American Crystal Sugar Co., which says it supplies about 15% of the nation's sugar, had to slow
production at three of its five plants for 11 days in mid-February because it was running out of
storage space while waiting for trains to ship its sugar to food companies. That has disrupted the
Moorhead, Minn.-based cooperative's just-in-time delivery system, said David Berg, its chief
executive. "The railroad just threw that into complete chaos," he said.
He said delays in outbound shipments of sugar have interfered with the production schedules of
American Crystal's customers, many of them major food manufacturers.
While he said he wasn't aware of any food companies that have had to halt production, "They've
been running on fumes for weeks," he said. "We've been humping trucks all over the U.S. to keep
people in supply." American Crystal supplies General Mills Inc.,GIS -0.66% Kraft Foods
Group Inc., KRFT -0.09% Nestlé SA, Mars Inc. and KelloggCo. K -0.14% , among others.
Mr. Berg and Perry Cerminara, director of global sweetener and energy-risk management
at Hershey Co. HSY -0.34% , called the problems caused by BNSF "serious" in a March 4 letter
to regulators and stressed the "urgent" need to fix them. Mr. Cerminara wrote on behalf of the
Sweetener Users Association, representing food manufacturers.
A spokesman for BNSF said it is working with customers individually to address their most
critical issues and plans record spending on expansion this year.
Utilities are hoping railroads can improve their capacity before the busy summer season. "We try
to build up inventories to around 40 days, so we're counting on spring," said one official at a
coal-fired power plant. But, he added, "We're not counting on a magic bullet."
April 23, 2014 - Canadian government issues tank car directives
Published: April 23, 2014
OTTAWA, Ontario – Canada’s Transportation Minister says her government is introducing
“concrete measures” that stiffen Canada’s oversight of railroads and hazardous materials moves.
In news releases early Wednesday afternoon, Lisa Raitt, Canada’s Minister of Transport,
announced a spate of changes effective immediately. Among the changes and orders are:
 A protective direction (No. 34) removing the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from
dangerous goods service;
 A directive requiring DOT-111 tank cars used to transport crude oil and ethanol that do
not meet the standard published in January 2014 in Canada Gazette, Part I, or any other
109
future standard, to be phased out or refitted within three years;
 A ministerial order requiring Emergency Response Assistance Plans for crude oil,
gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and ethanol;
 Creation of a task force that brings stakeholders such as municipalities, first responders,
railways and shippers together to strengthen emergency response capacity across the
country; and
 An emergency directive that imposes operating speed limits for all trains carrying
dangerous goods.
"As the Minister responsible for Canada's transportation system, I am committed to making our
country a model of world class safety,” Raitt said in a statement. “The measures I am announcing
today improve the safety of the railway and transportation of dangerous goods systems from
coast to coast to coast."
The Association of American Railroads almost immediately released a statement from Ed
Hamberger, the association’s president.
“We are pleased that Transport Canada has recognized the safety benefits of the voluntary action
items already implemented by railroads in the U.S.,” Hamberger said. “Railroads also have been
in the vanguard of those calling for the aggressive retrofit or phase out of older tank cars
currently in service moving flammable liquids, including crude and ethanol. Transport Canada
has indeed recommended an aggressive timeline and we are confident that the industry will do all
it can to meet it.”
Hamberger and rail leaders are currently testifying before the National Transportation Safety
Board in Washington, D.C., regarding safety with crude oil and ethanol shipments. The NTSB is
live-streaming the forum throughout the day.
April 30, 2014 - CSX Train Derails in Fiery Crash in VA
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A CSX Corp train carrying crude oil derailed and burst into flames in
downtown Lynchburg, Virginia on Wednesday, spilling oil into the James River and forcing the
evacuation of hundreds.
CSX said 15 cars derailed at 2:30 p.m. ET on a train traveling from Chicago to Virginia. Photos
and video footage from the scene showed high flames and a large plume of black smoke.
Officials said there were no injuries, but some 300 to 350 people in a half-mile radius had been
evacuated.
City officials instructed motorists and pedestrians to stay away from downtown, while
firefighters battled the blaze. Three railcars were still on fire as of 4 p.m., CSX said.
JoAnn Martin, director of communications for the city, said three or four tank cars were leaking,
and burning oil was spilling into the river, which runs to Chesapeake Bay. She said firefighters
were trying to contain the spill and would probably let the fire burn itself out.
110
The fiery derailment occurred a short distance from office buildings in downtown Lynchburg, a
city of 77,000. The incident was sure to prompt critics to call for stricter regulations of the
burgeoning business of shipping crude oil by rail.
John Francisco, a lawyer in Lynchburg at the firm of Edmunds & Williams, told local TV station
WSET 13 he heard a loud noise that sounded like a tornado and then watched as several cars
derailed. The flames streaked as high as the 19th floor of his office building, he said.
"The smoke and fire were on a long stretch of the train tracks. The smaller fires died down pretty
quickly. You could feel the heat from the fire," Randy Taylor, who was working downtown when
the train derailed, told the station.
The Department of Transportation said it was sending Federal Railroad Administration inspectors
to the scene.
Several trains carrying crude oil have derailed over the past year, prompting critics to question
the safety of hauling explosive liquids by rail. Last July, a runaway train in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec, derailed and exploded, killing 47 people.
There was no immediate information about the origin of the cargo or the train's final destination.
Most East Coast refineries are far to the north. One of the only oil facilities to the east of
Lynchburg is a converted refinery in Yorktown, which is now a storage depot run by Plains All
American. The company did not immediately reply to queries.
It was not clear what had caused the accident or triggered the fire in Lynchburg, the commercial
center of central Virginia.
CSX is "responding fully" to the derailment with emergency personnel, safety and environmental
experts, it said.
Diane Riley, a spokeswoman for Centra Lynchburg General Hospital, said they have had no
injuries or casualties brought in from that train derailment.
NEW RULES
Lawmakers and rail officials have called for tougher regulations related to hauling crude and
flammable liquids across North America. U.S. regulators are expected soon to propose new rules
for more robust tank cars to replace older models.
Local communities, particularly those in New York and the Pacific Northwest, have grown
concerned about the sometimes mile-long oil trains that have been rolling across the country.
Previous derailments have occurred in places as far removed as Alberta and Quebec in Canada,
and North Dakota and Alabama in the United States.
In Virginia, environmental groups have raised alarm about the new traffic in crude oil - including
111
light and volatile crude from North Dakota's Bakken region - that is being transported by rail to
the Yorktown terminal, which can handle 140,000 barrels per day.
Their concerns have revolved around CSX's route through populated areas like Lynchburg and
the proximity to the James River. Groups including the Sierra Club and the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation have opposed an expansion of crude-by-rail shipments through the region, citing
environmental and safety concerns.
Another CSX train carrying crude oil derailed in Philadelphia in January, nearly toppling over a
bridge. CSX has been positioning itself to deliver increasing volumes of crude oil to East Coast
refineries and terminals.
In January, CSX chief executive Michael Ward told analysts on a conference call that the
company, which shipped 46,000 car loads of crude by rail last year planned, to boost such
shipments by 50 percent this year.
At the time, Ward said that Jacksonville, Florida-based railroad was working with U.S. regulators
to address safety concerns about crude-by-rail shipments in light of recent derailments and fires.
May 1, 2014 - NTSB takes the lead in CSX oil train wreck,
politicians call for oil-by-rail regulations
By Justin Franz
Published: May 1, 2014
Firefighters and railroaders work along the tracks where several CSX tank cars carrying crude oil
derailed and caught fire along the James River in Lynchburg, Va., Wednesday, April 30, 2014.
Photo by AP Photo/News & Daily Advance, Parker Michels-Boyce
LYNCHBURG, Va. – For the sixth time in less than a year, a train carrying crude oil has derailed
and exploded in North America, once again putting a spotlight on the movement of crude oil-byrail. Late Wednesday, investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board were heading
to Lynchburg, Va., where a CSX Transportation oil train derailed and caught fire, sending flames
and black smoke hundreds of feet into the air and spilling burning fuel into the nearby James
River.
The loaded oil train, KO82-27, was heading for Yorktown, Va., with 104 cars of oil and one
head-end spacer car. According to CSX, 15 cars derailed in the incident about 2:30 p.m. Nobody
was injured in the accident but much of downtown Lynchburg was evacuated. The railroad
confirmed that three tank cars were damaged in the wreck and burned for about two hours.
Downtown residents were able to return to their homes by Wednesday evening. Virginia Gov.
Terry McAuliffe announced the state was offering the city “any and all resources” it needed to
112
deal with effects of the wreck. Meanwhile, CSX opened a community outreach center at the
Wingate Hotel to handle any needs arising from the derailment. The center will be open from 8
a.m. to 10 p.m. Thursday. CSX Chief Executive Michael Ward told Fox Business Network that
his company was deploying as many resources as it could to help the community.
“We are deploying all of our resources for three primary purposes, one to support the local
emergency responders and secondly to protect the community and citizens from injury, and
finally to protect the environment,” Ward said Wednesday.
Just ten months ago, 47 people were killed and more than 30 buildings were leveled when a
Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway oil train derailed and exploded in downtown Lac-Megantic,
Quebec. The MM&A has since gone bankrupt and is in the process of being sold while the small
town of about 6,000 has yet to fully recover. Derailments have also occurred in Alberta, New
Brunswick, Alabama and North Dakota, all with explosive outcomes. Since December, the
Canadian government has made efforts to ban the DOT-111 tank car that has been at the center of
many of the wrecks and is requiring shippers and railroads to phase out the car by 2017. Last
week, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said the United States would make a similar effort
in the coming months.
Just hours before the Lynchburg wreck, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged President Barack
Obama to use executive powers to bringing “needed and overdue safety regulation to the crude
oil transportation system.” Shortly after news of the latest wreck broke, Cuomo issued a
statement to the media.
"This is the latest in a series of accidents involving trains transporting crude oil, a startling
pattern that underscores the need for action. In addition to steps that states like New York are
taking, the federal government must overhaul the safety regulations, starting with taking DOT111 trains off the rails now. These trains travel through populated communities in Upstate New
York and we cannot wait for a tragic disaster in our state to act,” Cuomo said.
May 7, 2014 - Spuyten Duyvil Derailment Inspires Legislation
Calling for Sweeping Rail Safety Reforms
Posted by: Hudson Valley Reporter Posted date: May 07, 2014
WASHINGTON D.C. – A bill introduced in the House of Representatives this week calls for
sweeping rail safety reforms in the wake of the train derailment in Spuyten Duyvil last December
that killed four and injured dozens of others.
The comprehensive legislation was proposed by three of Connecticut’s representatives to
Congress—Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes and Elizabeth Esty—along with Rep. Sean Patrick
Maloney (D-Westchester).
113
Among other things, the Rail Safety Enforcement Act, would require that every rail carrier
control cab have an “alerter,” an automatic failsafe device that sounds an alarm when a train
engineer seems idle while the train is in motion, and that every rail carrier develop a fatigue-risk
plan within 60 days and submit it to the secretary of transportation.
“We can’t wait until the next tragic accident to adopt these commonsense measures to protect
workers and commuters. Passing the Rail Safety Enforcement Act ensures all commuter rails like
Metro-North have redundant safety measure that keep folks safe,” said Maloney.
DeLauro called the Rail Safety Enforcement Act “comprehensive, common-sense legislation that
will improve rail safety all across the nation.”
“Our first responsibility for our train systems has to be ensuring the public safety,” she said.
Himes said that Metro North’s string of accidents and delays over the past year were
“unacceptable and inexcusable.”
“One of the busiest commuter rail lines in the country must be safer and must be more reliable –
it is critical to our safety and to our region’s continued economic vitality,” he said. “I am pleased
to join my colleagues in introducing legislation that will help ensure that accidents like the Bronx
derailment and the death of a Metro-North track worker earlier this year will never happen
again.”
Edward Wytkind, president of Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, said that rail
employees, as well as riders and communities on the railroads, “deserve the peace of mind of
knowing that railroads are as safe as possible.”
“The legislation is a significant step forward in making sure our railroads are operating with the
best practices while protecting the people who work on them,” Wytkind said. “We urge Congress
to move this legislation without delay.”
Other provisions in the Rail Safety Enforcement Act include requiring every carrier to report on
their progress in implementing a Positive Train Control System within 180 days of the law’s
enactment; requiring the secretary of transportation to issue regulations mandating “shunting,” or
redundant signal protection for workers on the track; and requiring mandates that railroad
employees are given predictable and defined work and rest schedules.
May 22 2014 - Secrecy of Oil-by-Train Shipments Causes Concern
Across the U.S.
Crude-by-Rail Has Jumped in Shale Boom, but Towns en Route Don't Get Data They Need for
Safety
By RUSSELL GOLD and BETSY MORRIS May 22, 2014 7:04 p.m. ET
114
Emergency responders in Cincinnati know that trains full of crude oil have been rumbling
through their city; they can see mile-long chains of black tank cars clacking across bridges over
the Ohio River.
But they don't know enough to feel prepared for the kinds of fiery accidents that have occurred
over the last 10 months after oil-train derailments. How many of the 100 trains that pass through
residential neighborhoods and warehouse districts daily are carrying oil, for example? And when
crude is carried, is it the kind that federal investigators have linked to explosions?
"We have no idea when trains are moving through and when they aren't," said Thomas Lakamp,
special operations chief for the Cincinnati Fire Department. "The railroads aren't required to
report to us."
A first step toward limited disclosure takes effect next month.
But secrecy still cloaks the rapidly expanding business of shipping crude by rail, leaving local
officials from Portland, Ore., to Toronto struggling to obtain details about oil shipments. Driven
by long-standing railroad-industry fears about stirring local protests or terrorist attacks, there is
no central repository for information on oil trains or other hazardous materials. Nor are there
easy-to-find maps of train routes from the oil fields of North Dakota and Texas to refineries on
the Gulf of Mexico and the East and West coasts.
An emergency order from the U.S. Transportation Department in June will start requiring
railroads to alert states about oil trains originating in North Dakota. But the rules, which follow
accidents involving oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale in such unlikely locations as
Lynchburg, Va., and Aliceville, Ala., already are coming under criticism. Some critics say the new
rules are inadequate, while others worry that any disclosures will increase the likelihood of
sabotage.
The dearth of information partly reflects the surging popularity of oil trains, in which roughly 100
crude-laden tankers are strung together. In 2008, it would take four days for railroads to move
100 tank cars of oil. Today, oil trains of that size depart every two hours, according to industry
and government statistics. The Energy Department estimates that 1 million barrels of oil a day
ride the rails across the U.S., more crude than Libya, Ecuador or Qatar exports daily.
Federal safety regulations were tightened in 2009 to require railroads to conduct detailed yearly
analysis to determine the safest routes for the most hazardous shipments, including radioactive
materials, explosives and deadly chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. But oil isn't included, even
though each tank car of crude holds the energy equivalent of two million sticks of dynamite or
the fuel in a widebody jetliner.
The rules, developed with the Department of Homeland Security, require that the railroads keep
secret all their routing decisions and analysis and share them only with "appropriate persons."
Under current industry protocol, local officials can request retrospective information about the
most hazardous shipments that traveled through their communities during the previous year,
though the information railroads disclose is general. Regarding oil shipments, some railroads say
115
they provide information and training to first responders when asked.
Federal regulators have complained that the energy industry has been reluctant to disclose much
about the oil it ships. In the wake of accidents including one in Quebec that killed 47 people,
investigations by the Canada and the U.S. found that shipments were poorly labeled and rarely
tested.
The Wall Street Journal reported in February that Bakken crude is more volatile than many
traditional kinds of light crude oil, carrying a high content of combustible gas. The finding
subsequently was confirmed by reports from refiners and North Dakota oil producers, which
found that oil from other shale formations also is more volatile and combustible than most
conventional crudes from reservoirs.
Starting next month, the federal government will require railroads to tell states how many trains
of Bakken oil from North Dakota are headed their way and which routes such pipelines-onwheels will take. The rules, which apply to shipments of at least 1 million gallons, or roughly
23,810 barrels, say the information should be shared with government officials. Most oil trains
include 100 or more tank cars, each of which holds about 30,000 gallons of crude.
The emergency order doesn't require railroads to share details about the volatility or
combustibility of the crude. Nor does the order require information on what kind of railcars are
transporting the oil, which has been another focus of accident investigators.
It doesn't apply to shipments of similarly volatile crude from other shale formations. Oregon's
two senators, both Democrats, urged that the rule include disclosures on any train carrying crude,
not only oil from North Dakota.
Refiners said the new rules could end up increasing risks. "Does this order provide a would-be
terrorist with specific route information?" asked Richard Moskowitz, general counsel for the
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers lobbying group.
Some people in the railroad industry agree. "If you start setting up a system where public officials
are notified of hazardous-material movements like this, you will have a lot of public conversation
about things that, in our post 9/11 world, we don't want to have public," said a board member of a
major railroad.
Railroads also want to avoid protests by student activists and environmentalists such as last
August's sit-in on tracks in Auburn, Me., seven weeks after the deadly Lac-Mégantic, Quebec,
oil-train explosion.
The Association of American Railroads, an industry group, said it is trying to determine how to
comply with the rule. Railroads are being asked to report exact schedules, but the vast majority of
freight trains don't follow set timetables.
Matthew K. Rose, executive chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. BRKB +0.25% 's BNSF
116
Railway, said the industry is developing an automated system for notifying local authorities in
advance about crude-oil shipments. Until that is ready, he said, BNSF would compile the
information manually.
"The cities are saying, 'We don't know what's moving through our towns,' " Mr. Rose said. "That's
a fair question."
Communities have been caught off guard by how quickly oil-train traffic increased, said Rick
Edinger, vice chairman of the Hazardous Material Committee for the International Association of
Fire Chiefs. Fire departments are prepared for an accident the size of an 18-wheeler hauling
gasoline, not the thousands of barrels of crude carried on oil trains, he said.
"There aren't any fire departments that can deal with a spill or a fire of that size," said Mr.
Edinger, an assistant chief of the Chesterfield County Fire & EMS near Richmond, Va. "We don't
have the equipment or resources."
That concern has prompted some first responders to say that in addition to information, they need
training and equipment. "That would make a difference," said Kenny Harmon, manager of the
hazardous-material program at the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. "What they
are doing is a feel good that doesn't amount to a hill of beans."
In Cincinnati, fire Chief Lakamp said that if a crude train derails and explodes, his department
would evacuate nearby residents and hope that the fire didn't move from car to car.
A study of hazardous materials moving through the region issued last year didn't mention crudeby-rail shipments, he said. "This is relatively new to everybody."
May 20 2014 - Lac-Mégantic: Suppressing the Truth Behind
Regulatory Failure
AUTHOR(S): Bruce Campbell
MAY 20, 2014
Last week, 10 months after disaster struck the town of Lac-Mégantic, Québec government
prosecutors laid criminal charges against three front-line employees of Montréal Maine and
Atlantic Railway (MMA).
Each suspect, paraded publicly in handcuffs in a classic U.S. style “perp walk,” was charged with
47 counts of criminal negligence causing death.
Residents reacted with disbelief at the travesty of the bankrupt MMA, which was also charged
and only faces fines if convicted. Its senior executives, directors, and owners have escaped
prosecution while the three employees face life behind bars.
For those hoping to achieve justice through the criminal courts, this is a cautionary tale.
117
The producers who loaded their explosive Bakken oil onto unsafe tank cars face no charges.
The shippers who wrongly classified it as low volatility when it was, in reality, a much higher
volatility gasoline-like product, face no charges. Neither do the Canadian importers who were
obligated to ensure that it was properly classified.
They could be prosecuted for improper classification under the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Act, but Transport Canada has revealed little about the status of its criminal investigation.
Here too, the result is likely to be disappointing.
Civil actions underway—a wrongful death suit in U.S. court by the victims’ families, and the
class-action suit on behalf of the town’s citizens—reach much further up the pyramid of
accountability, with the latter involving more than 50 defendants.
Transport Canada is among the class action defendants, though the prospect of it being found
responsible is remote.
These processes may bring partial resolution to the community, though they will take years and
will likely result in settlements before any verdict is reached.
Further up the accountability pyramid, senior Canadian and U.S. transport officials, along with
oil and rail industry executives, dragged their feet for years on replacing the old DOT-111 tank
cars. They’d been warned multiple times from their own transportation safety boards that DOT111 tank cars were prone to puncture and should not be used for transporting hazardous goods.
At the time of the accident, more than 80 per cent of the tank cars carrying crude oil in North
America—including all 72 cars on the Lac-Mégantic train—were this older defective model.
It took until just a few weeks ago for Transport Canada to order the elimination of all old DOT111 tank cars used for the transport of crude oil… by May 2017.
Where does responsibility lie for the enormous regulatory lapse that allowed MMA to operate its
oil trains with one-person crews, a factor that Transport Canada itself admitted, “contributed to
the accident and magnified its consequences.”
A 2009 Transportation Safety Board report warned: “when only one crew member is left to
complete train securement tasks at the end of a work shift, the risk for runaway equipment is
increased, because there is no opportunity for other crew members to identify and correct any
errors.”
A recent Radio Canada investigation by Enquête shed light on the behind-the-scenes
maneuvering at Transport Canada. MMA applied to Transport Canada in 2009 for permission to
operate with one-person crews as it was doing across the border in Maine. Officials at the
Montreal office opposed this request because of the company’s history of safety violations and
the potential danger to communities.
118
A year later, a Transport Canada audit of MMA revealed major deficiencies in its performance
and procedures, including with train inspections and brake tests.
MMA returned with the same request in 2011, and again the Montreal office balked. MMA
complained to the industry lobby, the Railway Association of Canada (RAC). A senior RAC
official promised to “make some calls.”
The Steelworkers union—in collective bargaining with MMA at the time—also strenuously
opposed one-person crews. However, the government mediator told the union negotiator that this
was not a bargaining issue since the decision was Transport Canada’s to make.
Over all these objections, MMA was granted its wish in May 2012.
At the apex of the accountability pyramid are the political leaders who put in place and maintain
the regulatory regime. They set the tone, expectations and guidelines for the regulators. They
choose the senior managers to administer the regime, and determine the regulatory bodies’
budgets.
On paper the regulatory regime—which gives the companies primary responsibility for
establishing and implementing their own safety management systems within a framework of
strong government rules, oversight and enforcement—may be sound.
However, if those rules are too vague. Or if companies are regularly granted exemptions. If the
relationship between regulator and regulated is too cozy. Or if, as three Auditor General reports
have found, Transport Canada is not able to provide the necessary oversight and enforcement—
then it becomes effectively self-regulation.
Add to the mix a company like MMA, determined to take advantage of these regulatory gaps in
its pursuit of profit, and a catastrophic accident is only a matter of when, not if.
Policy makers are also responsible for setting the budgets at a level sufficient to ensure public
safety.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) division’s annual budget of $14 million has
remained frozen since 2010. The rail safety directorate budget, currently $34 million, was cut in
by 19 per cent between 2010 and 2014. The number of inspectors has remained the same for the
last 10 years.
With only 35 TDG inspectors to handle the exponential growth in volume of oil by rail, the
number of tank carloads of crude oil per TDG inspector has risen from 14 in 2009 to 4500 in
2013. With the volume expected to double by the end of this year, that number rises to 9000.
To illustrate how small these budgets are in comparison with the companies being regulated, their
combined budgets are less than the 2012 compensation received by Hunter Harrison, the CEO of
Canadian Pacific. His compensation package was over $49 million that year.
119
Finally, policy makers establish the regulatory culture. The Conservative government’s approach
to regulatory policy, directed from the Treasury Board, is embodied in its incessant use of the
pejorative term “red tape”, which implies that regulations are burdens on business rather than a
legal mechanism to protect the public interest. The so-called one-for-one policy mandates that
every new regulation must be offset by the removal of an existing one.
Assessment of a proposed regulation’s impact is supposed to include a calculation of benefits
along with costs—as well as its impact on health, safety as well as the impact on the
environment, on vulnerable groups, etc. In practice, impact is determined almost entirely by
anticipated costs, most of which are short-term costs to business. Moreover, significant
regulatory proposals generally do not move forward without the nod from the Prime Minister’s
Office.
Such a regulatory culture emanating from the top infects attitudes, procedures and practices in all
regulatory agencies.
The Transportation Safety Board investigation, due in a couple of months, will likely produce
important revelations about the accident’s causes. But it is hard to imagine that it will target those
at the upper levels of the accountability pyramid.
So while then-Transport Minister Lebel gets shuffled to another portfolio, and senior bureaucrats
in charge of the file are moved or retired; while company executives and owners evade
prosecution; while it’s largely business as usual in oil-by-rail transportation— three scapegoated
workers at the bottom of the pyramid face the possibility of life in prison.
The people of Lac-Mégantic entrusted government to take reasonable measures to ensure their
safety. Their trust was betrayed. They deserve to know the truth behind the corporate negligence
and regulatory failure for which they paid such a heavy price.
Bruce Campbell is executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
This op-ed was first published on National Newswatch
June 10 2014 - Rail Companies Want To Keep Oil Train Route
Information A Secret In Oregon And Washington
Two railroad companies are trying to keep the routes they use to ship Bakken crude oil through
Washington and Oregon a secret, asking officials in both states to sign confidentiality
agreements.
BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific have asked Washington and Oregon to sign agreements
that would stipulate that the volume of oil they ship and the route they use would only be
released “for bonafide emergency planning and emergency response activities.” That means
emergency responders would only know how much oil is being shipped on what rail routes in
120
certain cases — for instance, if an accident occurs.
Already, Washington has refused to sign the railroads’ agreement because the state says it violates
its public records law. Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an emergency
order requiring railroad companies to disclose information on routes, volume of oil and
frequency of trains to state officials, but BNSF and Union Pacific want to make sure state
officials keep that information to themselves.
Union Pacific says it wants to keep the routes a secret because of national security concerns.
“There’s terrorist issues, identifying what’s a train carrying that people could do something to,”
Scott Moore, a Union Pacific spokesman told the Oregonian. “Right or wrong, that’s one of the
ways we think we’ve helped deliver things securely is people don’t always know what’s going
on. We’re not going to tell him or her when and where.”
However, as the Oregonian points out, though there have been multiple oil-by-rail accidents over
the past several years, none of them have been caused by terrorist activity. The editorial board of
the Oregonian is opposed to the confidentiality agreement.
“The benefit to the public’s safety in knowing the volume and whereabouts of oil trains
outweighs any threat of terrorism,” the board writes. “Gasoline and diesel fuel are routinely and
safely shipped by barge up the Columbia River, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as anyone
accessing the service’s records, can know about each and every journey.”
Right now, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum’s office is conducting a review of the
confidentiality agreement to determine whether or not it’s in Oregon’s best interest to sign. Rich
Hoover, community liaison at the Oregon Office of State Fire Marshal, told ThinkProgress in an
email that he doesn’t have a timeline for when the state will decide on the confidentiality
agreement and that, since the state is still evaluating the agreement, he didn’t know whether
Washington’s decision not to sign would factor in to Oregon’s decision. He also said that right
now, the public does not have access to oil-by-rail route information from Oregon’s State
Emergency Response Commission.
“We want to provide as much information as we can,” Sue Otjen, Oregon’s State Emergency
Response Commission coordinator, told the Oregonian. “We need to know to what extent we can
disclose it.”
BNSF and Union Pacific’s push to keep oil-by-rail information under wraps in the Western U.S.
comes on the heels of revisions made by the State Department on its impact assessment of the
Keystone XL pipeline.
The revisions target previous estimates of deaths from oil-by-rail accidents: In January, when the
impact statement was released, the State Department estimated that if the pipeline wasn’t built,
accidents from oil-by-rail shipments (which State assumes would be responsible for shipping
Canadian oil in Keystone XL’s stead) would contribute to 49 injuries and six deaths over a
decade. The State Department’s revised figures up those estimates considerably to 189 injuries
and 28 deaths over 10 years.
121
State Department officials issued these corrections because their calculations had previously used
a three-month forecast rather than one for a full year, which made the initial estimates too low.
But the assumption that tar sands oil will come out of the ground regardless of whether Keystone
XL is built or not — and that, in the case the pipeline is rejected, the oil will be shipped by rail —
won’t necessarily come to fruition. Shipping oil by rail is dangerous (as the new estimates clearly
show) and has already led to major accidents. Most notably and tragically, an oil train that
derailed near the tiny Quebec town of Lac Mégantic last summer killed 47 people and destroyed
much of the town’s center.
It’s also expensive — an analysis by Reuters last year found that shipping oil by rail could cost
three times more than shipping it by pipeline, making it a costly alternative.
The post Rail Companies Want To Keep Oil Train Route Information A Secret In Oregon And
Washington appeared first on ThinkProgress.
July 2 2014 - For Oil-By-Rail, a Battle Between “Right to Know”
and “Need to Know”
Since the first major oil-by-rail explosion occurred on July 6, 2013, in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec,
citizens in communities across the U.S. have risen up when they've learned their communities are
destinations for volatile oil obtained from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in North Dakota’s
Bakken Shale basin.
As the old adage goes, ignorance is bliss. It's also one of the keys to how massive oil-by-rail
infrastructure was built in just a few short years — the public simply didn't know about it.
Often, oil companies are only required to get state-level air quality permits to open a new oil-byrail facility.
Terry Wechsler, an environmental attorney in Washington, recently explained to Reuters why
there was no opposition to the first three oil-by-rail facilities in the area. “There was no
opposition to the other three proposals only because we weren't aware they were in formal
permitting,” he said
The same thing unfolded in Albany, N.Y., where there is an ongoing battle over expansion of the
major oil-by-rail facility set to process tar sands crude sent by rail from Alberta. The initial
permits for the oil rail transfer facility, which would allow two companies to bring in billions of
gallons of oil a year, were approved with no public comment.
Oil and rail companies know well that they can proceed with their planned expansions more
easily if communities remain unaware of their plans.
122
And now that some states — including North Dakota — have defied their efforts to keep the
public in the dark about the crude-carrying trains, the public will have a much clearer idea of
what's going on.
A case in point, DeSmogBlog recently revealed crude-by-rail giant Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) moves up to 45 trains a week in some North Dakota counties and up to three dozen
in others.
Big Rail’s Big Bluff
The rail industry has enjoyed a long history of legal protections, allowing it to operate in secrecy
with regards to carrying hazardous materials. Indeed, Big Rail pushed hard to fight the release of
information to the public on the transportation of Bakken crude oil.
This time around, the rail industry said that information it was compelled to give the federal
government on its Bakken oil shipments under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT)
May 7 Emergency Order could not be released to the public under state-level open records laws.
Why? Because it fell under the category of “sensitive security information.”
In boilerplate letters and contract proposals sent to heads of State Emergency Response
Commissions — one of which was obtained via Idaho’s Public Records Act by DeSmogBlog —
BNSF deployed this argument.
This legal designation means BNSF and other companies could withhold information regarding
the movements of Bakken crude from the public — by exempting it from state-level open records
laws — and would only have to release it to the emergency response commissions.
“It is important to note that this information is subject to several restrictions on its release and
exemptions from both state and federal applicable Freedom of Information laws and should only
be provided to persons meeting with the appropriate need-to-knows discussed below,” BNSF
wrote in its boilerplate letter.
“BNSF considers this information commercial confidential and business confidential information
and Security Sensitive Information pursuant to Federal law, and the documents have been
marked accordingly.”
But despite BNSF’s legal claims, some states have released this information in response to open
records requests. And the federal government has also leaned toward advocating for
greater transparency.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) confirmed by e-mail to the Sacramento
Bee that the administration did not consider this information “security sensitive,” stating, “TSA
has not made a finding as to whether or not information concerning the volume of crude oil train
traffic or the routes used by these trains is considered security-sensitive information.”
The Federal Railroad Administration also concluded information about Bakken crude was not
123
considered sensitive security information.
Community’s Right to Know
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s website contains a section on right to know laws.
That section opens by stating, “Every American has the right to know the chemicals to which
they may be exposed in their daily living.”
In the case of the ongoing battle occurring between states, the federal government and the rail
industry, though, the battle lines have been drawn between “right to know” laws and “need to
know” laws.
When it comes to Bakken crude oil, the rail industry’s position is clear: the public has no “need
to know” anything.
Rail safety consultant Fred Millar told DeSmogBlog he expects the oil industry to increase
attempts to keep information secret. He cautioned against seeing this latest development of some
information being released to the public as a win for the public’s right to know.
“It should not be regarded as any kind of a great of victory at this point,” Millar said, “The main
thing that they are not doing is giving the local emergency responders and local communities
worst-case scenario information about what could actually happen.”
While the release of some records is a first step in the right direction for transparency advocates,
some states are still holding out on forking over records so the pendulum is only slowly swinging
in the direction of the public interest.
And as the Lac-Mégantic disaster made clear, sometimes transparency for oil-by-rail comes in the
worst possible form: a surprise lethal “bomb train” entering your community on a beautiful
summer day.
July 6, 2014 What Have We Learned Since Lac-Mégantic?
By Eric de Place - Sightline Daily, July 6, 2014
A year ago today, in the small hours of the morning, a parked oil train slipped its brakes, rolled
downhill, and derailed in a small town in Quebec. When the tank cars breached, they caught fire
and erupted into a towering fireball that leveled several blocks of town and incinerated 47 people
almost instantly.
That horrific disaster ushered in a new era of fear about crude oil-by-rail shipments.
Two weeks earlier Sightline had published the first regional inventory anywhere of oil-by-rail
projects. We pointed out that Oregon and Washington are home to nearly a dozen active or
proposed oil train depots that in aggregate would move about as much crude as the Keystone XL
Pipeline—and far more than the region’s oil refining capacity. We released the report widely, and
the response we got back sounded a lot like crickets chirping.
124
But after the explosion in Quebec, our phones started ringing off the hook.
As a result of growing interest in the subject, we devoted ourselves to researching and explaining
the issue. Here are some of the most important things we’ve learned about oil-by-rail since LacMégantic:
 Crude oil haulage is the single biggest growth sector for US railroads, and oil-by-rail
shipments are up at least 57 times above pre-2009 levels.
 There is no consensus about why the light shale oil from the Bakken formation (the
source of the oil in the Quebec train, and the source of the oil in Northwest trains now) is
so risky. Some suggest it’s concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, while others point to
volatile compounds and an exceptionally low flash point. Curiously, the American
Petroleum Institute argues that all oil is as dangerous as Bakken oil.
 Federal safety inspectors have known for years—for decades, really—that the most
common oil tank cars are riddled with design flaws that render oil transport inherently
risky. Yet despite overwhelming evidence, both the oil and rail industries lobby
policymakers to stall or defang new safety regulations. In fact, the industry has plainly
told the feds they they have no plans to remove the older unsafe tank cars from service
any time soon. Worse yet, even the newer model tank cars for carrying oil have design
flaws, cannot safely be intermingled with older cars, and in at least one case actually
derailed and caught fire.
 Railroads are so under-insured against the risk of catastrophic accident that they are, for
all intents and purposes, uninsured against the costs of a Lac-Mégantic-style explosion in
a densely populated area. If something awful happened, taxpayers would be on the hook.
Regardless, the dominant railroad in the Northwest, BNSF, continues to route loaded oil
trains through the heart of cities including, for example, within just a few feet of a major
league baseball stadium during the ninth inning.
 Despite the fact that the Northwest region sees about nine freight train derailments each
month, BNSF maintains a rocky relationship with its workers. The railroad opposed
union-supported state legislation to require two-man crews on trains, legislation that
responded in part to the fact that the Lac-Mégantic train was operated by a solo engineer,
just as it opposed even basic information disclosure about oil shipping. Workers for the
railroad complain that BNSF sometimes prioritizes speed over thorough safety procedures
and that it requires crews operating trains to stay awake for as long as 24 hours.
 The “Bakken boom,” as the big shale oil extraction bonanza in North Dakota is
commonly called, could well turn out to be a classic bubble. If federal regulators issue an
emergency order to stop shipping oil in older-model unsafe tank cars—already thoroughly
justified and well within their authority—Bakken oil extraction would, by necessity,
decline dramatically because there would be no way to move it to market.
The Lac-Mégantic disaster was not a one-time event. In the months that followed, oil trains blew
up in Alabama, New Brunswick, North Dakota, and Virginia. Thankfully, no one else was killed.
Yet the risks remain very real for communities across North America, and particularly in the
Northwest, where the oil industry has its sights set on a massive increase in oil trains. Most
controversial are three proposed terminals in Grays Harbor and a titanic oil transfer facility
125
planned for the Columbia River at Vancouver, Washington.
July 15, 2014 - Industry To Feds: We Will Keep Using Old Unsafe
Tank Cars For Three More Years, or Longer If We Feel Like It
This is the kind of oil industry-friendly approach to regulation that should make you want to bang
your head on your desk. Bloomberg has the story:
The oil industry and the railroads that haul its crude have offered U.S. regulators a joint plan to
phase out a type of older tank car tied to a spate of fiery accidents… The parties agreed to scrap a
fleet of thousands of DOT-111s within three years if manufacturers agree they can replace or
retrofit the tank cars in that period. [emphasis added]
What happened here is that the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of American
Railroads met privately with federal regulators to offer this proposal in lieu of more stringent
safety rules, such as those recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Keep in mind that the DOT-111 tank cars in question are notoriously and obviously unsafe. Four
times in the last year they have derailed and unleashed towering infernos, killing 47 people in one
case. Yet the industry wants to keep them rolling on a daily basis through the heart of big cities,
past major league baseball games, schools, cruise ship terminals, you name it. Even though these
shipments expose taxpayers to enormous liability risks because the industry is radically underinsured against catastrophic accidents.
And even though these shipments are so dangerous that the slow federal regulatory response
earned the ire of the top US transportation safety official who called it, “a tombstone mentality”
and said, “we don’t need a higher body count before they move forward.”
But big industry players—railroads and oil companies alike—oppose removing legacy DOT-111s
from service because doing so might burst the Bakken shale oil bubble.
Worse yet, even the overlong three year plan the industry proposes is probably little more than a
smokescreen because even that schedule contains a poisonous caveat that tank car manufacturers
be able to produce enough tank cars. Yet there’s very good reason to think that they can’t. In fact,
industry representatives have already warned “that the railway supply industry will have a hard
time meeting the rising demand for new cars while retrofitting existing ones,” and shippers
looking to buy rail cars are already facing a two-year backlog in some markets.
The details of the plan are troubling too. Among other elements, the industry favors tank cars
with thinner steel shells than what the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended,
apparently to reduce costs. If regulators at the US Transportation Department go along, the deal
would represent an unscientific approach that compromises safety to gain industry approval.
It should be clear by now—after explosion followed by explosion—that the crude oil-by-rail
126
industry thinks about safety regulations differently than most people do. Here they are in their
own words:
Edward Hamberger, chief executive officer of the [American Association of Railroads], said
“What is the need for commerce? What is the need for having a tank that actually has some
capacity? You could make them a foot thick and then have them carry three gallons each. There
will always be some risk.”
Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific
Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.
July 22, 2014 - Crew Fatigue Persists as Oil By Rail Increases Risks
By Tony Shick - Earth Fix, July 22, 2014
On a November morning in 2003, a sleeping Union Pacific crew missed a signal in Kelso,
Washington. Their train collided with the side of an oncoming BNSF Railway train. Fuel tanks
ruptured and spilled 2,800 gallons. Total damage neared $3 million. Unlike a similar collision in
the same spot 10 years earlier, the crews escaped alive.
The primary cause, according to investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board: the
crew’s fatigue, brought on by irregular work schedules and sleep disorder.
The NTSB had been asking the Federal Railroad Administration to address both issues for years.
It made similar recommendations again a year later, after fatigue caused a fatal derailment
involving chlorine gas in Texas.
Then in 2011, the crew of a BNSF coal train in Red Oak, Iowa, fell asleep and instead of
stopping struck the rear of a parked equipment train, crushing the cab and killing the crew of the
coal train, sparking a diesel fire and causing $8.7 million worth of damage.
The primary cause of the accident: the crew’s fatigue, brought on by irregular work schedules and
sleep disorder.
Fatigued crews, crude oil increase risk for disaster
Sleeping train crews are the primary cause in at least eight major train crashes investigated by the
NTSB since 2000, according to the agency’s reports.
The true prevalence of fatigue in train crashes is likely far higher, said Mark Rosekind, a member
of the NTSB specializing in the subject. Human error is the leading cause of train incidents and
accidents, and Rosekind estimates fatigue underlies anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of those.
“It’s very likely we have grossly underestimated fatigue in pretty much everything we’ve looked
at for a long, long time,” Rosekind said.
The rapid rise in shipments of hazardous crude oil has raised the stakes for addressing fatigue, he
said.
 Crude oil was once a rare commodity in rail cars. Last year BNSF, the leading crude oil
127
transporter, hauled more than 600,000 barrels per day across its network, including as
many as 18 trains per week through the Columbia River Gorge.
Fiery derailments have prompted intense public scrutiny and calls for improved oil train safety
measures, including heftier tank cars and better-equipped emergency responders. Meanwhile,
fatigued and unsafe crews remain an unresolved problem for the industry — a problem that rail
workers and union officials in the Northwest say has worsened in recent years.
Industry practices contribute to fatigue
Railroad workers are more likely to get fewer than seven hours of sleep on work days, studies
show. They also report sleep disorders beyond the norm for working adults. Crews fighting sleep
deprivation are impaired at levels comparable to alcohol intoxication and can increase the risk of
accidents anywhere from 11 to 65 percent.
Western railroads BNSF and Union Pacific say they are fully committed to fighting fatigue, and
have been for decades.
“We take fatigue very seriously and have dedicated a lot of resources to finding better ways to
provide more accurate and more specific on-duty reporting times to our employees,” BNSF
spokesman Zak Andersen said.
Railroads educate workers about proper rest, help them get treatment for sleep apnea and
experiment with more predictable work schedules.
Jackie Keenan, senior manager of occupational health and psychology at Union Pacific, said one
of the keys is opening up communication about fatigue between crews and managers.
“Folks that work at UP know that fatigue is a valued, important issue,” Keenan said. “They know
where to find our information, they know they can contact me at any time if there’s additional
support that I can lend.”
Railroad industry accident and injury rates have fallen dramatically in the past few decades, but
fatigue remains one issue safety advocates say hasn’t been adequately addressed.
Federal law caps rail workers’ shifts at 12 hours with at least 10 rest hours between shifts. It also
limits the allowable number of consecutive work days. Even so, many industry practices persist
that contribute to fatigue:
 Irregular, unpredictable work schedules leave train crews unable to plan their rest. A
worker slated for a shift that starts at 9 a.m. could get called instead at 7 p.m. the night
before with little warning. In other words, some train crews moving hazardous materials
like crude oil have been awake over 24 hours.
 Workers and union representatives say railroads pressure fatigued employees into working
instead of resting. Railroads insist any fatigued crew member can lay off work without
discipline.
 The FRA has lagged in developing guidelines for fatigue management plans, and railroads
remain the only major transportation industry without federally required medical fit-forduty tests, including screenings for conditions like sleep apnea.
 Many rail workers expect two new changes on BNSF lines in the Pacific Northwest to
128
worsen fatigue. One is a push to reduce minimum crew sizes to one person, another is a
new route that keeps workers away from home longer.
Workers feel pressure to work through fatigue
David Brewer, a former BNSF conductor in Havre, Montana, remembers a time he felt exhausted
before he ever boarded his train bound for Whitefish. He warned his dispatcher and said he’d
need a replacement crew at Marias Pass in the Rockies. When he approached the pass, he said, a
replacement crew was not ready.
The dispatcher asked him to take the train over the mountain. But his engineer was already
falling asleep, he said. They refused.
“I’m not gonna endanger my life, my engineer’s life, or anybody else’s life because the railroad
wants me to go 30 miles further, or 10 miles further even,” Brewer said. “If you can’t go, you
can’t go. If you’re tired, you’re tired. And they’re the ones that should know that.”
His account of the mountain pass echoes dozens of current and former workers’ sentiments about
fatigue: it’s always there, and you’re expected to push through.
Workers and their unions attribute that expectation in part to railroad requirements that workers
be available full-time, with few exceptions. Some have practices that identify employees for “low
performance” who can then be subject to discipline if their hours do not meet the railroad’s
expectations.
Herb Krohn, legislative director for the United Transportation Union in Washington, said
railroads pressure fatigued workers into taking shifts out of fear of losing their jobs. He recalled
one case in which an employee was disciplined for attendance despite working or being on-call
for 85 percent of his waking and non-waking hours.
BNSF spokesman Zak Andersen said no employee who lays off for reasons of fatigue would be
disciplined.
“The only time that would become an issue is if that was part of a pattern,” he said. He described
a pattern as several times during a three-month span. “In that case, the railroad would work with
that employee to find out is there an intervening factor that is preventing him from keeping with
his duty and complying with the attendance policy.”
In rare opportunity, a report lost
Ask a hundred railroad workers about train-crew lineups, and you’ll get a hundred different
horror stories, said Chris Malm, who spent 16 years with BNSF as a conductor and engineer
based in Seattle before moving to another railroad in 2005.
His own: It was 3 p.m. and the lineup didn’t have him slated to leave till 9 the next morning. He
laid down for a nap at 7 p.m., then got a call at 7:30 saying he was needed at 9 p.m. By the time
he reached his destination terminal in Canada, he’d been awake for nearly 40 hours. Malm
remembers times his conductor said he fell asleep standing up. It felt like he’d only blinked.
129
BNSF gave Malm and a fellow employee on the local safety committee nine months to study
fatigue full time. They traveled to different terminals and company headquarters. They sat with
train crews, managers and dispatchers. They turned in a 108-page report to management, a big
piece of which dealt with inconsistent lineups, he said.
Malm said he was never asked about the report again. He never got an explanation as to why, nor
did he ask. He doubts management ever read it.
“It pretty much was thrown in the trash as soon as we finished the committee,” he said.
When asked about the report, a BNSF spokesman said the company could not locate it.
Malm said frustration over the report influenced his decision to leave the railroad. He regrets not
pushing harder and not following up with the report, though he’s not sure how far it would have
gone.
“‘Safety, safety, safety’ is one thing,” Malm said, “but if your employees who are instrumental in
making sure the freight moves, the customers are served, are walking around like zombies
because someone in this chain of events who creates a lineup isn’t doing their job, and nobody is
going to take action to make sure they do their job, then the fatigue portion of safety — which I
think is huge — wasn’t that important to them.”
In the years since Malm left BNSF, the company started a pilot project giving workers predictive
work schedules. Tested at select yards in Oklahoma, North Dakota and Nebraska, the program
provides a detailed, set schedule eight weeks in advance for railroad employees like engineers
and conductors.
“BNSF has long been a leader in fatigue countermeasures,” Andersen said. “Our newest work
program, predictive work schedules, is the first of its kind that we know of where an employee
knows exactly when he’s going to come on duty.”
BNSF has tried similar pilot programs in the past to solve the same problem.
Federal rules lagging
William Keppen made a career out of trying to prevent sleeping train crews. Now an independent
consultant to the industry and committees sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration,
Keppen worked in fatigue countermeasures for BNSF at a time when railroads developed
aggressive fatigue-fighting plans in response to mounting pressure for changes in rail safety laws.
Keppen traveled across the railroad implementing programs to cut fatigue — some similar to
BNSF’s current predictive scheduling program.
Throughout the early 2000s, many railroads quietly scaled back fatigue management programs,
Keppen said. Some were terminated altogether for financial reasons.
Then after a fatal crash in California, a 2008 federal law made fatigue management plans
mandatory — although there are still no rules in place to carry out Congress’s intent.
The FRA planned to issue guidelines in 2013 but still hasn’t done so. In a recent email statement,
the agency said “the rule is forthcoming, but we can’t offer a precise timeline for its issuance.”
130
Some railroads have taken this into their own hands ahead of the FRA rulemaking. Union
Pacific, for instance, developed a plan its officials say was vetted by five top independent fatigue
experts.
None of these plans require mandatory medical screenings for issues like sleep apnea, which
Keppen has been advocating for years.
The boom in oil by rail, Keppen said, “exponentially increases the risk not only to train crews but
particularly to civilians. I can’t tell you, I’ve knocked on the FRA’s door, I’ve knocked the AAR’s
door, I’ve knocked on individual railroad’s doors, I’ve even knocked on the union door,” Keppen
said.
The NTSB, too, has spent decades recommending those screenings for railroads, which remain
the only major mode of transportation without them. Both unions and railroads have resisted
mandatory screenings.
“There are a lot of people who think it would be a good idea,” Keppen said. “But there’s also a
lot of institutional barriers.”
The FRA spent several years developing rules for medical fit-for-duty testing but decided not to
pursue it because of high costs to railroads. In its report on the coal train collision that killed two
BNSF employees, the NTSB stated it was “disappointed” in the FRA’s decision, stating that
mandatory screenings might have prevented the wreck.
July 29 2014 - Warren Buffett Really Likes Oil Trains - Despite the
Explosions
By Eric de Place - Vice News, July 29, 2014
The people in the Musi-Café had no idea what hit them. At about 1am on July 6, 2013, a train
parked on a slope a couple miles away slipped its brakes. Seventy-two tank cars loaded with
crude oil accelerated into the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, and began to tumble off the tracks,
detonating and burning with a force so powerful that it leveled several city blocks. Forty-seven
people were killed — most of whom were inside the Musi-Café.
In the months that followed, Lac-Mégantic became a rallying cry, a bloody shirt waved by
activists across North America who were growing increasingly concerned about a relatively new
phenomenon: ultra-long trains loaded with a peculiar variety of crude oil.
Months later, after several other oil train accidents, Warren Buffett went on CNBC claiming that
oil train explosions were “very, very, very, very rare.”
131
If Buffett sounded defensive, it may have been because he is the single most important person in
the world of oil-by-rail, an industry that he dominates and that has proven to be highly profitable
for oil companies and railroads — and singularly dangerous to the public.
Depending on your definition of "rare," Buffett’s assurances don't appear to mesh with reality. In
November 2013, an oil train in rural Alabama derailed and burst into flames that could be seen
10 miles away; the cargo eventually ended up as a smoking oil slick in a marsh.
In December 2013, an oil train struck a grain train outside Fargo, North Dakota. It spilled
400,000 gallons of crude and burst into a towering mushroom cloud. Dumbstruck drivers
captured the incident on video and posted it to YouTube.
In January 2014, another train exploded in a remote part of New Brunswick.
Then in April, an oil train passing through Lynchburg, Virginia jumped off the tracks. The
resulting conflagration towered above town and burned so hot that office workers on the sixth
floor of a building 200 yards away reported feeling the heat. The fiery oil tankers fell into the
James River. If they had instead tipped over in the direction of town, there's no telling what could
have happened.
Earlier this month, an oil train moving between rail yards in downtown Seattle derailed — but
this time, the tank cars did not breach. A railroad representative said there had been no danger to
the public.
Although trains in North America have moved small quantities of oil for decades, it is only in the
last several years that oil trains have emerged as a high-volume delivery device — a rickety
pipeline on rails.
The revolution started in the shale beneath western North Dakota, a region known as the Bakken
formation. About five years ago, new fracking and horizontal drilling techniques unleashed a
gusher of light crude into a region not well-served by pipelines. Railroads were quick to step into
the breach, loading oil into just about any tank cars they could get their hands on, including a
notorious model, the DOT-111, that federal safety investigators have been flagging as being
unsafe for transporting hazardous substances for 20 years.
By 2013, rail car shipments of crude were 50 or 60 times more common than they had been only
a few years before, and railroads were moving the stuff to just about every corner of the
continent.
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway is owner of the biggest player in hauling Bakken oil by rail:
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). And it isn’t a minor player in Berkshire
Hathaway's impressive portfolio — BNSF was the "largest purchase in Berkshire's history." Last
year, BNSF had revenues totaling more than $22 billion.
Last week, federal regulators proposed new rules that were widely heralded as a victory for
132
public safety. But in reality, the oil-by-rail industry got most of what it wanted.
The company is no stranger to oil train problems. The oil train that tipped over in central Seattle
was on BNSF tracks, as was the one that blew up near Fargo. Following that explosion, the
Federal Railroad Administration revealed that since 2006 in the state of North Dakota alone,
BNSF received 721 safety violations.
Buffett likes to maintain an avuncular and public-spirited image, but the railroad industry fights
bitterly against better safety standards and often cloaks itself with intermediaries. In the
regulatory arena, Berkshire-owned firms are represented by active membership in an alphabet
soup of trade associations and industry lobbying groups, including the American Association of
Railroads, the Railway Supply Institute, and the North American Freight Car Association.
Industry groups have opposed removing the outlet valves that protrude from the bottom of DOT111 tank cars. Federal investigators have concluded that removing the valves would yield a
“significant improvement” to tank car safety and could be “easily accomplished.” But because
removing the valves would also necessitate modifying oil loading and unloading infrastructure —
infrastructure the oil industry is building at a breakneck pace — the oil-by-rail industry has
opposed reform.
Beleaguered by bad press about oil train explosions, in February BNSF announced plans to
purchase 5,000 new, safer tank cars — though the company declined to specify a timeline for
when it might actually take delivery. Just two days earlier, BNSF had lobbied the Washington
state legislature to oppose a bill asking for basic disclosure about oil trains. A few weeks before
that, BNSF had lobbied in opposition to union-supported safety legislation to require at least
two-person crews on oil and other freight trains. The explosion in Lac-Mégantic occurred on an
oil train manned by a single crew member.
Last week, federal regulators proposed new rules that were widely heralded by the media as a
victory for public safety. But in reality, the oil-by-rail industry got most of what it wanted. Even
if the rules take effect — they could be amended a great deal after the current 60-day period for
public comment — railroads will still be able to string together 100-car trains composed of older
DOT-111 tankers for the next three years. The feds will allow bottom outlet valves, and
effectively exempted short oil trains of 20 tank cars or fewer from any new regulations at all.
Buffett is rightly regarded as a legendary investor, a man who has made many enormously
successful bets, including the one he made when he bought BNSF in the midst of the Great
Recession. (At the time, he referred to the acquisition as an “all-in wager on the economic future
of the United States.”) Now he's betting with peoples’ lives with every oil train traveling on
BNSF's network. There is nothing stopping Buffett and the tank car industry from
decommissioning the outdated tank cars, running only new or retrofitted tank cars, and
eliminating bottom outlet valves.
Nothing, that is, except for the profits those measures would temporarily burn.
133
Eric de Place is policy director at the Seattle-based think tank Sightline Institute and has written
extensively about the evolving fossil fuel export industry. Follow him on Twitter: @Eric_deP
August 4 2014 - Worker Safety Questioned as Trains and Accidents
Multiply
By Blake Sobczak - Energywire [Paywall Site], August 4, 2014
The recent surge in oil train traffic along North America’s freight network has been a boon for
railroads struggling to cope with falling coal shipments.
But though the crude-by-rail boom has kept workers busy, it has also raised questions about their
safety and preparedness following a series of oil train derailments and explosions.
A tentative agreement between BNSF Railway Co. and a major transportation union last month
would allow certain trains to operate with just one engineer on board, provided they were
outfitted with Positive Train Control. PTC technology allows for the train to be stopped or
slowed automatically if it exceeds a speed limit or is on track for an unseen collision.
BNSF spokeswoman Roxanne Butler pointed out that the PTC labor deal would not apply to any
trains hauling hazardous materials such as crude oil. The agreement is now being considered by
members of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers’
Transportation Division (SMART TD).
But union representatives have worried that the agreement could clear the way to phase out oil
train conductors in the future, setting what they consider a dangerous precedent.
“You can’t talk about this issue without mentioning the terrible lessons that we learned at LacMégantic,” said SMART TD National Legislative Director James Stem, referring to a fiery oil
train derailment and explosion in Quebec last year that killed 47 people.
The train was not manned when it jumped the tracks in downtown Lac-Mégantic, but it had been
operated by a lone engineer the previous night. The worker is now facing charges of criminal
negligence for allegedly failing to apply enough hand brakes that could have prevented the train
from breaking free from its parking place and hurtling toward town.
In that case, Stem explained, safety “had nothing to do with the size of the tank car — it had to
do with management decisions that were made based around the fact that they had a crew of
one.”
“Based on our experience and multiple fatalities, a crew of at least two certified employees is
necessary for the safe operation of the train,” he said.
The Federal Railroad Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is now
134
crafting regulations that will likely require oil trains to be staffed by at least one conductor and
one engineer. An FRA spokesman said the regulator expects to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking on the topic by the end of the year.
The U.S. rail industry already uses at least two employees on oil or ethanol trains as standard
practice.
But in a statement supporting the FRA’s two-person crew proposal in April, Edward Wytkind,
president of the Transportation Trades Department at the union confederation AFL-CIO, noted
that railroads’ “previous collective bargaining pursuits have included attempts to employ oneperson crews.”
Railroads have sought to use smaller crews in recent decades to cut down on labor costs, arguing
that technologies such as PTC and improved operating practices preclude the need for many
workers. But regulators and labor groups have maintained that larger crews boost safety.
‘We don’t believe in jobs at any cost’
Crude-by-rail shipments have shot up from fewer than 10,000 carloads in 2008 to more than
400,000 carloads last year, according to data from the Association of American Railroads.
A single mile-long oil train can carry millions of gallons of oil in 100 or more tank cars. Federal
rules require such trains to put at least one “buffer car” of some benign material — like sand —
between the locomotives and the tank cars to protect workers.
Stem of SMART TD said railroads have a “fairly good safety record” when it comes to crude-byrail, which he sees as more of an opportunity than a threat. He said “any new commodity that
comes in large quantities brings some challenges to safe transportation” but added that rail
workers are ready to handle it.
But several recent accidents haven’t helped quell safety concerns of other labor groups less
accustomed to handling light, sweet crude from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale play.
In Vancouver, Wash., the local arm of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
has opposed a planned oil-by-rail terminal that would be jointly run by refiner Tesoro Corp. and
Savage Cos.
On July 18, members of ILWU Local 4 hoisted a banner at the Port of Vancouver protesting the
“unsafe oil” that would be brought to the proposed Tesoro/Savage facility.
ILWU Local 4 President Cager Clabaugh said that although the 360,000-barrel-per-day terminal
“would benefit” dock workers, “we chose to oppose it because we don’t believe in jobs at any
cost.”
“We’ve been seeing that this [oil] is super-dangerous and the industry has basically proven in the
past year and a half that they cannot handle their product safely,” he said, citing the Lac-Mégantic
disaster and a Dec. 30, 2013, derailment and fire near Casselton, N.D.
“If they call us to do the work, we’re not going to refuse it,” Clabaugh added. “We hope that
135
there would be adequate training available.”
Tesoro spokeswoman Jennifer Minx pointed out in an emailed statement that the company’s
crude-by-rail unloading terminal in Anacortes, Wash., has operated “without a spill or injury”
since it opened two years ago.
She said that if the Vancouver project moves forward, all employees will undergo “hands-on”
terminal, rail and marine testing programs before going to work. “Crews will undergo training
that exceeds regulatory standards,” she said.
‘Eyes and ears’
Freight rail companies such as BNSF have installed their own training regimens for employees
working with hazardous materials such as crude.
The industry has pumped millions of extra dollars in recent months into oil spill preparedness
and emergency response training.
Still, railroads aren’t held to a federal standard when it comes to security training, drawing ire
from some union officials.
In 2007, the Implementing Recommendations of 9/11 Act tasked the Department of Homeland
Security to establish a base-line training program for mass transit, rail and bus employees.
But the DHS has yet to publish rules to set up the program, which would prepare employees for
handling security threats and emergency conditions. In 2013 the agency formally requested
comments and data “on employee security training programs and planned security training
exercises currently provided by owner/operators of freight railroads, passenger railroads, public
transportation systems (excluding ferries), and over-the-road buses,” but the regulator has yet to
follow up with a rule. A DHS official said the agency continues to work on the issue.
The wide-reaching 2007 9/11 Act separately expanded protections for rail employees by
preventing railroads from firing workers for reporting information “regarding any conduct which
the employee reasonably believes is a violation of any Federal law, rule or regulation relating to
railroad safety or security.”
Larry Willis, secretary-treasurer of the Transportation Trades Department at AFL-CIO, said in an
interview that “workers are often called the eyes and ears of their respective industries — without
proper training, they can’t in a comprehensive manner contribute to the security of the systems in
which they work.”
Willis acknowledged that a number of railways have implemented their own security training
programs. “But the whole point of the 9/11 Act provisions is to ensure that all employers across
the sector have a base-line level of security,” he said. “It’s not a complicated issue, quite frankly
— Congress puts forth good training mandates, and those mandates need to be followed.”
136
August 7, 2014 - Rail Company Involved in Quebec Explosion Files
for Bankruptcy
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: August 7, 2013
BANGOR, Me. — The railroad company whose runaway oil train caused a fire and explosion
that killed 47 people in a small town in Canada filed for bankruptcy protection on Wednesday.
The company — Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway — filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in United States and Canadian courts, citing debts to more than 200 creditors after the
July disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
The company chairman, Ed Burkhardt, said previously that a bankruptcy filing was likely after
service disruptions because its rail line remained closed in Lac-Mégantic. The company, based in
Hermon, Me., also faces lawsuits and enormous cleanup costs related to the disaster.
The parked train, with 72 tankers full of crude oil, was unattended when it began rolling toward
town, eventually derailing downtown. Several tankers exploded, destroying 40 buildings in the
lakeside town of 6,000 residents.
August 12 2014 - Crude-by-rail terminals to expand in Alberta, New
Mexico
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. (KMP) last week announced its 50-50 joint venture with
Imperial Oil Ltd. has entered into additional agreements with oil companies that will enable a
planned expansion to move forward at the Edmonton Rail Terminal in Strathcona County,
Alberta.
Under construction for nearly a year, the terminal will feature capacity of 210,000 barrels per day
(bpd) at startup in first-quarter 2015. Capacity then potentially could climb to 250,000 bpd, KMP
officials said in a press release.
Located near CN and Canadian Pacific mainlines, the terminal will be connected via pipeline to
KMP’s adjacent Edmonton storage terminal and will source all crude streams for delivery by rail
to North American destinations. Including the expanded capacity, KMP's investment in the
project now totals about $232 million, company officials said.
Meanwhile, Murex L.L.C. and Cetane Energy L.L.C. have agreed to double the capacity of
Cetane's crude transload terminal in Carlsbad, N.M.
Improvements to the unit-train transload terminal will accommodate the loading of 40,000
barrels of crude per day by July 2015. The project includes additional on-site storage, track
enhancements, and increased capacity for truck offloading and rail-car loading.
137
Served by BNSF Railway Co. and Southwestern Railroad Inc., the terminal shipped its first unit
train of crude in December 2013.
"Murex and Cetane have worked closely with the BNSF and Southwestern Railroad to convert
Cetane Energy from a 25-car-per-day manifest terminal into a unit-train-capable facility, allowing
for the shipment of up to two unit trains per week," said Murex President Robert Wright in a
press release. "The additional investment into the facility will allow us to ship four to five unit
trains per week, [offering] a unique, long-term and economical takeaway opportunity for Permian
Basin crude-oil production."
August 19, 2014 Lac-Mégantic runaway train and derailment
investigation summary by TSB
This summary of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's (TSB) Railway Investigation
Report R13D0054 contains a description of the accident, along with an overview of the analysis
and findings, the safety action taken to date, five key recommendations, and what more needs to
be done to help ensure an accident like this does not happen again.
138
The accident
On the evening of July 5, 2013, at about 10:50 p.m., a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway
(MMA) train arrived at Nantes, Quebec, carrying 7.7 million litres of petroleum crude oil in 72
Class 111 tank cars. Originating in New Town, North Dakota, these were bound for Saint John,
New Brunswick.
In keeping with the railway's practice, after arriving in Nantes, the locomotive engineer
(engineer) parked the train on a descending grade on the main track. A replacement engineer was
scheduled to continue the trip east in the morning.
The engineer applied hand brakes on all five locomotives and two other cars, and shut down all
but the lead locomotive. Railway rules require hand brakes alone be capable of holding a train,
and this must be verified by a test. That night, however, the locomotive air brakes were left on
during the test, meaning the train was being held by a combination of hand brakes and air brakes.
This gave the false impression that the hand brakes alone would hold the train.
The engineer then contacted the rail traffic controller in Farnham, Quebec, to advise that the train
was secure. Next, the engineer contacted the rail traffic controller in Bangor, Maine, who
controls movements for the crews east of Lac-Mégantic. During this conversation, the engineer
indicated that the lead locomotive had experienced mechanical difficulties throughout the trip,
and that excessive black and white smoke was coming from its smoke stack. Because they
expected the smoke to settle, it was agreed to leave the train as it was and deal with the situation
the next morning.
Shortly after the engineer left, the Nantes Fire Department responded to a 911 call reporting a fire
on the train. After shutting off the locomotive's fuel supply, the firefighters moved the electrical
breakers inside the cab to the off position, in keeping with railway instructions. They then met
with an MMA employee, a track foreman who had been dispatched to the scene but who did not
have a locomotive operations background.
139
Once the fire was extinguished, the firefighters and the track foreman discussed the train's
condition with the rail traffic controller in Farnham, and departed soon afterward. With all the
locomotives shut down, the air compressor no longer supplied air to the air brake system. As air
leaked from the brake system, the main air reservoirs were slowly depleted, gradually reducing
the effectiveness of the locomotive air brakes. Just before 1 a.m., the air pressure had dropped to
a point at which the combination of locomotive air brakes and hand brakes could no longer hold
the train, and it began to roll downhill toward Lac-Mégantic, just over seven miles away.
As it moved down the grade, the train picked up speed, reaching a top speed of 65 mph. It
derailed near the centre of the town at about 1:15 a.m.
Aftermath and emergency response
Almost all of the 63 derailed tank cars were damaged, and many had large breaches. About six
million litres of petroleum crude oil was quickly released. The fire began almost immediately,
and the ensuing blaze and explosions left 47 people dead. Another 2000 people were forced from
their homes, and much of the downtown core was destroyed.
The pileup of tank cars, combined with the large volume of burning petroleum crude oil, made
the firefighters' job extremely difficult. Despite the challenges of a large emergency, the response
was well coordinated, and the fire departments effectively protected the site and ensured public
safety after the derailment.
Key issues in the investigation
This investigation looked at many issues to find out what happened, why it happened, and what
needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. This section describes some of these key
issues.
140
Fire in the locomotive
In October 2012, eight months before this accident, the lead locomotive was sent to MMA's
repair shop following an engine failure. Given the significant time and cost of a standard repair,
and the pressure to return the locomotive to service, the engine was repaired with an epoxy-like
material that lacked the required strength and durability. This material failed in service, leading
to engine surges and excessive black and white smoke. Eventually, oil began to accumulate in the
body of the turbocharger, where it overheated and caught fire on the night of the accident.
Braking force
The Canadian Rail Operating Rules required that unattended equipment be left with a
"sufficient" number of hand brakes applied to prevent movement, and that the effectiveness of
the hand brakes be tested. MMA's rules called for a minimum of nine hand brakes for a 72-car
train. These rules also required that a train's air brake system not be depended upon to prevent an
undesired movement.
Even more crucial is the requirement to test the effectiveness of the hand brakes. That night, the
engineer carried out the hand brake effectiveness test with the locomotive air brakes still applied.
141
As a result, the test did not identify that an insufficient amount of hand brake force had been
applied to secure the train.
The TSB concluded that, without the extra force provided by the air brakes, a minimum of 17
and possibly as many as 26 hand brakes would have been needed to secure the train, depending
on the amount of force with which they had been applied.
Air brakes 101
Trains have two types of air brakes: automatic brakes and independent brakes.
Automatic air brakes are used to slow or stop the entire train, and are controlled by means of a
brake pipe connected to each car and locomotive. Decreases in pressure within this pipe cause air
to flow into each car's control valve, which injects stored air into the brake cylinder, applying the
brake shoes to the wheels.
By contrast, independent air brakes are available only on locomotives. They are activated by the
direct injection of air into their brake cylinders, which then apply the brake shoes to the wheels.
Both independent brakes and automatic brakes are supplied with air from a compressor on each
locomotive. When a locomotive is shut off, the compressor no longer supplies the system with
air.
When air leaks from the various components, the pressure in the brake cylinders gradually drops,
and the amount of force being applied to the locomotive wheels by the independent brakes is
reduced. Eventually, if the system is not recharged with air, the brakes will become ineffective
and provide no braking force.
When the air brake control valves sense a drop in pressure in the brake pipe, they are designed to
activate the brakes on each car. In this accident, however, the rate of leakage was slow and
steady—approximately 1 pound per square inch per minute—and so the automatic brakes did not
apply.
142
Hand brakes 101
In addition to air brake systems, all locomotives and rail cars are equipped with at least one hand
brake. This is a mechanical device that applies brake shoes to the wheels to prevent them from
moving.
The effectiveness of hand brakes depends on several factors, including their age, their maintained
condition, their application in conjunction with air brakes, and the force exerted by the person
applying the hand brake, which can vary widely.
Class 111 tank cars: Damage and construction
All 72 tanks cars were Class 111, manufactured between 1980 and 2012. Although they met
requirements in effect at the time, they were built to an older standard, and they lacked
enhancements such as a jacket, a full head shield, and thermal protection.
143
Almost every car that derailed was breached, some in multiple areas, including shells, heads, top
and bottom fittings, and pressure relief devices. The exact location and extent of the damage
varied depending on the orientation and speed of the cars during the derailment.
When the tank cars were breached, the petroleum crude oil was released, fuelling the fire. The
damage to the tank cars could have been reduced by enhanced safety features. This is why the
TSB called for tougher standards for tank cars carrying flammable liquids.
144
145
Safety culture at MMA
An organization with a strong safety culture is generally proactive when it comes to addressing
safety issues. MMA was generally reactive. There were also significant gaps between the
company's operating instructions and how work was done day to day. This and other signs in
MMA's operations were indicative of a weak safety culture—one that contributed to the
continuation of unsafe conditions and unsafe practices, and significantly compromised the
company's ability to manage risk.
When the investigation looked carefully at MMA's operations, it found that employee training,
testing, and supervision were not sufficient, particularly when it came to the operation of hand
brakes and the securement of trains. Although MMA had some safety processes in place and had
developed a safety management system in 2002, the company did not begin to implement this
safety management system until 2010—and by 2013, it was still not functioning effectively.
Transport Canada
For several years, Transport Canada's regional office in Quebec had identified MMA as a
company with an elevated level of risk that required more frequent inspections. Although MMA
normally took corrective action once problems were identified, it was not uncommon for the
same problems to reappear during subsequent inspections. These problems included issues with
train securement, training, and track conditions. Transport Canada's regional office in Quebec,
however, did not always follow up to ensure that these recurring problems were effectively
analyzed and that the underlying conditions were fixed.
In addition, although MMA had developed a safety management system in 2002, Transport
Canada's regional office in Quebec did not audit it until 2010—even though this is Transport
Canada's responsibility, and despite clear indications (via inspections) that the company's safety
management system was not effective. Transport Canada Headquarters in Ottawa, meanwhile,
did not effectively monitor the Region's activities. As a result, it was not aware of any
weaknesses in oversight of regional railways in Quebec, and it did not intervene.
Single-person crews
The TSB looked very carefully at single-person train operations, and at whether having just one
crew member played a role in the accident. After looking at the circumstances that night, the
investigation was not able to conclude that having another crew member would have prevented
the accident.
However, there are some clear lessons for the system. If railways in Canada intend to implement
single-person train operations, then they need to examine all the risks and make sure measures
are in place to mitigate those risks. Transport Canada, for its part, should consider a process to
approve and monitor the railways' plans so as to assure safety.
146
Dangerous goods: Inadequate testing, monitoring, and
transport
The petroleum crude oil in the tank cars was more volatile than described on the shipping
documents. If petroleum crude oil is not tested systematically and frequently, there is a risk of it
being improperly classified. The movement of these improperly classified goods increases the
risk to people, property, and the environment. That is why the TSB issued a safety advisory letter
calling for changes.
Safety action following the accident
In the weeks and months after the accident, the TSB communicated critical safety information on
the securement of unattended trains, the classification of petroleum crude oil, rail conditions at
Lac-Mégantic, and the employee training programs of short line railways.
MMA, meanwhile, eliminated single-person train operations, stopped moving unit trains of
petroleum crude oil, and increased operating-rules testing and enforcement.
For its part, Transport Canada introduced numerous initiatives, including an emergency directive
prohibiting trains transporting dangerous goods from operating with single-person crews.
Sections of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules were also rewritten, and new tank car standards
have been proposed.
Considerable action was also undertaken in the United States. The National Transportation
Safety Board issued recommendations aimed at route planning for hazardous materials trains,
petroleum products response plans for worst-case spills, and the classification of hazardous
materials. The U.S. Department of Transportation also issued an emergency order strengthening
train securement rules, and a notice of proposed rulemaking targeting, among other items,
improved tank car standards.
TSB Recommendations
In January 2014, the TSB made three recommendations aimed at addressing systemic safety
issues that posed a significant risk. Three months later, it followed up to assess the action that
had been taken by government and industry. In August 2014, the TSB made two additional
recommendations.
Recommendation
Status
R14-05 (August 2014)
Transport Canada must take a more hands-on role when it comes to railways'
NEW
safety management systems—making sure not just that they exist, but that they
are working and that they are effective.
R14-04 (August 2014)
NEW
Canadian railways must put in place additional physical defences to prevent
147
runaways.
R14-03 (January 2014)
Emergency response assistance plans must be created when large volumes of
liquid hydrocarbons, like oil, are shipped.
R14-02 (January 2014)
Railway companies should conduct strategic route-planning and enhance train
operations for all trains carrying dangerous goods.
R14-01 (January 2014)
Enhanced protection standards must be put in place for Class 111 tank cars.
Fully
Satisfactory
(June 2014)
Satisfactory
IntentFootnote 1
(June 2014)
Satisfactory in
PartFootnote 2
(July 2014)
Footnotes
Footnote 1
Railways must make progress on the development and implementation of new rules to
improve their operating practices for the safe transportation of dangerous goods.
Return to footnote 1 referrer
Footnote 2
Although progress has been made, more work is required. All older Class 111 tank cars
must not transport flammable liquids, and a more robust tank car standard with enhanced
protection must be set for North America
Return to footnote 2 referrer
Findings
Investigations conducted by the TSB are complex—an accident is never caused by just one
factor. This report identifies 18 distinct causes and contributing factors, many of them
influencing one another.
148
This report also contains 16 findings as to risk. Although these did not lead directly to the
accident, they are related to unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, or safety issues with the potential to
degrade rail safety. Some of the risks that need to be addressed are:

the continuing risk of leaving trains unattended

the risk of implementing single-person train operations

the risk of not systematically testing petroleum crude oil

the risk of not planning and analyzing routes on which dangerous goods are carried

the risk of not having emergency response assistance plans in place

the risk of Transport Canada not ensuring that safety management systems work
effectively
Conclusion
The tragedy in Lac-Mégantic was not caused by one single person, action or organization. Many
factors played a role, and addressing the safety issues will take a concerted effort from regulators,
railways, shippers, tank car manufacturers, and refiners in Canada and the United States.
Although this investigation is complete, the TSB will continue to monitor the five
recommendations, and to report publicly on any progress—or lack of progress—until all of the
safety deficiencies have been corrected.
149
August 19 2014 - Report Reveals Cost Cutting Measures At Heart
Of Lac-Megantic Oil Train Disaster
Today the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its final report on the July 6th,
2013 train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The report produced a strong reaction from
Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s Climate and Energy Campaign coordinator.
“This report is a searing indictment of Transport Canada’s failure to protect the public from a
company that they knew was cutting corners on safety despite the fact that it was carrying
increasing amounts of hazardous cargo. This lax approach to safety has allowed the unsafe
transport of oil by rail to continue to grow even after the Lac Megantic disaster. It is time for the
federal government to finally put community safety ahead of oil and rail company profits or we
will see more tragedies, Stewart said.”
Throughout the report there is ample evidence to support Stewart’s position and plenty to show
why the people of Lac-Megantic want the CEO of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA),
the rail company responsible for the accident, held accountable in place of the engineer and other
low level employees currently facing charges.
At the press conference for the release of the report the TSB representatives often noted that they
had found 18 factors that contributed to the actual crash and they were not willing to assign
blame to anyone, claiming that wasn’t their role.
But several critical factors stand out and they are the result of MMA putting profits ahead of
safety and Transport Canada (TC), the Canadian regulators responsible for overseeing rail safety,
failing to do its job.
Engine Fire
The issue that set the whole chain of events into motion on July 6th was an engine fire in the
unattended locomotive. As usual the engineer had left the train unattended with one locomotive
running while shutting off the others. This locomotive supplied power to the air braking system.
The locomotive caught on fire, the fire department was called and they put out the fire and shut
off the locomotive in the process.
Today’s TSB report notes that the fire was due to an improper repair of a cam bearing. Instead of
doing a costly replacement, the cam bearing was repaired with epoxy (polymeric material). As
the report states:
This temporary repair had been performed using a polymeric material, which did not have the
150
strength and durability required for this use.
Braking Failure
Once the locomotive was shut down due to the fire, it could no longer power the air brake
system.
As previously reported on DeSmogBlog, this type of system has been described as “19th century
technology” by a rail safety expert at the Federal Railroad Administration but as a whole the rail
industry has not upgraded to newer technologies because of the costs involved.
Without power to the air braking system, the braking system lost pressure over time and the train
began to roll towards Lac-Megantic.
This wouldn’t have been an issue if the proper number of handbrakes had been applied. But the
engineer had not applied enough handbrakes because he had not performed the hand brake
effectiveness test properly and had left the locomotive air brakes on while conducting the test.
The report notes the lack of training and oversight for that particular locomotive engineer (LE).
Furthermore, the LE was never tested on the procedures for performing a hand brake
effectiveness test, nor did the company’s Operational Tests and Inspections (OTIS) Program
confirm that hand brake effectiveness tests were being conducted correctly.
The report also notes that when MMA employees were tested for safety knowledge, they could
take the tests home.
Requalification typically consisted of 1 day to complete the exam, and did not always involve
151
classroom training. On many occasions, employees would take the exam home for completion.
However, in this case, there were not even questions on the test on this critical subject.
They did not have questions on the hand brake effectiveness test, the conditions requiring
application of more than the minimum number of hand brakes, nor the stipulation that air brakes
cannot be relied upon to prevent an undesired movement.
And they found this had been the situation since before the oil trains starting running.
Since 2009, no employee had been tested on CROR 112(b), which targeted the hand brake
effectiveness test. In 2012, U.S. employees had been tested twice on that rule; both tests had
resulted in a “Failure”.
Single Operator Risks
The report goes into detail about how MMA came to be operating oil trains with only one crew
member. And while ultimately the regulators failed, some did raise flags about this. When MMA
initially sought to move to single person train operations (SPTO) from the standard two person
crew, it was noted that there were significant issues with their operations.
In July 2009, TC expressed a number of concerns that centred on deficiencies in MMA
operations, including lack of consultation with employees in doing risk assessments, problems
managing equipment, problems with remote-control operations, issues with rules compliance,
issues with fatigue management, and a lack of investment in infrastructure maintenance.
Additionally the report notes that Transport Canada’s Quebec office expressed specific concerns
in 2010.
TC Quebec Region reiterated its concern about MMA’s suitability as an SPTO candidate.
And yet despite the concerns and MMA’s poor track record, in 2012 they were allowed to start
running single crew trains despite TC Quebec still expressing concern.
In February 2012, TC met with MMA and the RAC. TC advised MMA that TC did not approve
SPTO. MMA only needed to comply with all applicable rules and regulations. TC Quebec
Region remained concerned about the safety of SPTO on MMA.
Unsurprisingly, the additional training for employees who would be operating trains on their own
was almost non-existent. And it was focused on the fact that for safety purposes, engineers were
allowed to stop the trains and take naps.
The actual SPTO training for several LEs, including the accident LE, consisted of a short briefing
in a manager’s office on the need to report to the RTC every 30 minutes, on the allowance for
power naps, and on the need to bring the train to a stop to write clearances.
This report is a clear indictment of a system that allows for corporate profit over public safety.
However, what also is clear from today’s press conference and from the regulatory situation in
the United States is that nothing of significance has changed regarding the movement of oil by
rail in the US and Canada.
A poorly maintained locomotive can still be left running and unattended. There still is no formal
regulation on how many hand brakes need to be applied to secure a train.
Single person crews are still allowed and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the company moving the
152
most oil-by-rail in the U.S., is working to implement this as a practice despite the objections of
the employees.
In short, the corporate profit before public safety approach is still standard operating procedure.
And the oil trains are expected to return to the tracks through Lac-Megantic within a year.
August 19, 2014 - Lac-Mégantic derailment: Anatomy of a disaster
KIM MACKRAEL
LAC-MÉGANTIC, QUE. — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Aug. 19 2014, 9:02 PM EDT Last updated Tuesday, Aug. 19 2014, 10:04
PM EDT
The Transportation Safety Board examined the complex series of events leading to last year’s
derailment in Lac-Mégantic that killed 47 people. The events included a faulty repair on the lead
locomotive’s engine, a lack of sufficient handbrakes, weak safety training for Montreal, Maine &
Atlantic staff and a failure of federal oversight. Here’s a timeline based on details in the 191-page
report.
Engine Repair: About nine months before the accident, MM&A performed a low-cost “nonstandard” repair on the engine in the train’s lead locomotive. The repair used a material that
wasn’t strong enough for the job and eventually failed, leading to a series of other problems in
the engine and an accumulation of oil in the turbocharger and exhaust manifold.
Engine Troubles: Two days before the crash in Lac-Mégantic, an engineer reported trouble with
the locomotive’s engine on a separate trip. Despite that concern, the locomotive was put at the
head of the train bound for Nantes on July 5, 2013. Engineer Tom Harding noticed that the
engine was surging, making it difficult to keep up a consistent pace. By the time he arrived in
Nantes, it was spewing smoke and oil droplets – his taxi driver noticed them landing on the cab’s
window. Mr. Harding discussed the issue with a rail traffic controller in Bangor, Me., but both
agreed to deal with the matter the next morning. The locomotive was left running.
Insufficient Brakes: Mr. Harding set just seven hand brakes – far fewer than the number that
would have been required to keep the 1.4-kilometre train in place on the hill where it was parked
if the main air brakes failed. TSB testing found that the minimum number of hand brakes set out
by a company chart – nine – wouldn’t have been enough on their own either. Instead,
investigators say between 18 and 26 hand brakes on cars and locomotives would have been
needed to hold the train if the air brakes failed. Other locomotives, with systems that could
automatically restart in a brake failure, were also shut down. The TSB said the railway didn’t
give staff enough training.
The Main Track: The engineer left the train idling on the main track, rather than pulling it into
the siding that ran parallel . The TSB found that this had been MM&A’s standard practice for
several months because it kept the siding free for storing other rail cars that weren’t in use. The
practice was not prohibited or questioned by government. Had the train been parked on the siding
153
when it began rolling forward, it would have hit a derail device that should have prevented it
from continuing downhill to Lac-Mégantic.
The Fire: A fire broke out on the lead locomotive about an hour after the engineer left. When
firefighters extinguished the fire and shut down the locomotive, no other locomotive was started
– leaving the air compressor off and the air brakes slowly leaking. The “reset safety control”
system was not wired to set the entire train’s brakes in the event of an engine failure, the TSB
found. The pressure in the air brake pipes was roughly 95 psi at midnight that evening. About an
hour after the train was shut down, it had dropped to 27 psi. The train started rolling, derailing 17
minutes later 11.6 kilometres away.
The Derailment: By the time the train reached a curve in the track in Lac-Mégantic, it was
travelling at 105 km/h, more than triple the typical speed at the location, according to the train’s
event recorder, akin to an airplane’s blackbox. The locomotives made the turn, but the tank cars
had a higher centre of gravity and derailed. There was now no pressure in the air brakes . The
report found that “speed was the major contributing factor in the derailment,” with investigators
saying the train likely derailed around the sixth tanker car. The ensuing pileup left about onethird of the tanker cars with large breaches.
The Oil: The train was carrying “highly volatile” oil from the Bakken region that straddles North
Dakota, Montana, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the level of hazard “had not been accurately
documented” by the railway, the report found. A boom in shipping such oil by rail has
“significantly increased the risks,” it found. The amount of oil, its low viscosity and high
volatility all allowed it to spill, spread and ignite quickly, triggering fireballs and a fatal fire in
the heart of the town. The TSB concluded MM&A didn’t do enough to identify and manage risks
on the railway and cited the company’s “weak safety culture.”
Transport Canada: The federal regulator knew of “significant operation changes” at MM&A,
but didn’t offer “adequate regulatory oversight,” the report found. Transport Canada also “did not
follow up” to ensure the “recurring safety deficiencies” were dealt with. “Consequently, unsafe
practices persisted,” the report found. Transport Canada also carried out audits of MM&A’s
safety management system, but the audits were limited in frequency and scope and had no
followup procedure.
With a report from Josh Wingrove in Ottawa
August 29 2014 - Union wants charges dropped against railway
employees in Lac-Megantic disaster
Andy Blatchford, Canadian Press | August 29, 2014 | Last Updated: Jan 24 8:23 PM ET
MONTREAL — The union and lawyers representing two railway employees accused in the LacMegantic disaster are urging the Crown to drop the charges in light of recent findings by the
Transportation Safety Board.
154
Engineer Tom Harding, railway traffic controller Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre, the manager
of train operations, each face 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death — one for each
victim of last summer’s oil-train derailment in the Quebec town.
A conviction carries a maximum life sentence.
On Thursday, the attorneys for Harding and Labrie, as well as a union official, called on
prosecutors to re-evaluate their cases following the release of last week’s TSB report into the
catastrophe. Demaitre was not unionized.
In its findings, the TSB criticized the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic railway for its “weak safety
culture” and also targeted Transport Canada for its poor oversight of the industry, particularly
amid a boom in oil-by-rail shipments across the continent.
“We’re asking the Crown to revise the charges against the workers implicated in Megantic,”
Daniel Roy, Quebec director of the United Steelworkers, told a news conference.
“We can see who’s really responsible for this event, this whole tragedy.”
Later in the day, however, a spokesman for the prosecutor’s office said the TSB report does not
change anything about the police evidence that was already evaluated by the Crown. Therefore,
proceedings are expected to move ahead.
The TSB report, the first comprehensive account of the derailment released to the public,
identified 18 contributing factors it says led to the crash.
Among the factors, the TSB said Harding applied an insufficient number of hand brakes on the
train and conducted an inadequate test before he left the convoy unattended for the night.
Attorney Thomas Walsh, who represents Harding, said his client’s actions amounted to “human
error,” not “wanton and reckless disregard,” which he added was necessary for a criminalnegligence conviction.
He also pointed to the TSB’s findings on Transport Canada and the MMA.
The TSB report concluded that the railway did not thoroughly identify security risks, nor did it
have a functioning safety management system — both contributing factors to the crash.
The company Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Canada, a subsidiary of the now-bankrupt MMA,
was charged in the case, but Walsh asked what good could come from accusing a company that
can’t be punished.
“You have to pierce the curtain which protects the people who are actually out there neglecting
things,” he said.
155
Walsh went a step further, calling on authorities to read the TSB report closely and consider
pressing charges against corporate and government officials whose decisions may have had a
hand in creating systemic deficiencies.
“Who’s responsible for the system? Walsh asked. “It’s not Thomas Harding. He works in that
system.”
He also suggested that a public inquiry be called to examine the disaster, an inquest he said could
help dig deep into all the factors behind it.
“I think the public has interest in finding out what the real causes of the tragedy are and making
sure that they’re avoided,” he said.
The next court date for the three men has been set for Sept. 11.
Walsh said the Crown has yet to disclose on what basis they made the accusations against
Harding.
He said he might advise the judge that he intends to present a motion to require the Crown to
explain why it charged his client.
Roy, meanwhile, took particular aim at federal cabinet ministers for their reactions to the TSB
document.
He accused Transport Minister Lisa Raitt, her predecessor Denis Lebel and Public Safety
Minister Steven Blaney of either deflecting blame or dismissing the TSB findings.
“Here we have a government that’s washing its hands,” Roy said.
“Not even the humility, the decency, to accept their responsibility. It’s shocking.”
A spokeswoman for Raitt declined an interview request Thursday, but said the minister would
deliver a formal response within 90 days of the release of the report.
“As we have always said, and as the TSB report indicates, this is a case where rules were not
followed,” Jana Regimbal wrote in an email.
“That being said, the report sets out higher expectations of Transport Canada in the area of
oversight. The public shares these expectations and so does our government.”
Lebel, who was shuffled from the transport portfolio to infrastructure about a week after the
disaster, was not available Thursday to comment on the allegations, his spokesman said.
Quebec provincial police said recently the investigation remains active, which could lead to more
arrests.
156
The three accused were arraigned in Lac-Megantic last May. At the time, Walsh said Harding
intended to plead not guilty to the charges.
Walsh also said he asked the court for a jury trial in the devastated community.
Several locals who watched the suspects enter the courtroom said they hoped authorities would
eventually lay charges against railway and government officials.
In releasing her report, TSB chair Wendy Tadros said the underlying causes of the accident go
well beyond the number of hand brakes applied and the engineer’s actions that night.
Before he left the scene, Harding called MMA’s dispatcher to report mechanical problems on the
locomotive and thick smoke belching from its exhaust. They agreed he could leave the engine for
the night, so he retired to a hotel.
Later in the night, a fire broke out on the locomotive. Firefighters called to the scene shut down
the engine, which allowed engine’s air brakes to slowly disengage.
An MMA track foreman with no background in locomotives met the firefighters at the scene and,
after consulting the rail-traffic controller, they left without restarting the locomotive. Eventually,
the train started rolling toward Lac-Megantic, where it derailed and exploded.
September 10, 2014 - Canada vs. the USA on Oil Train Standards
With what passes for chest beating in the world of railway regulation, US politicians this summer
claimed that the Transportation Department’s newly-proposed crude oil, ethanol, and flammable
materials train rules made the US Number One when it comes to tank car regulation—and that
we are doing better than Canada.
Rep. Rick Larsen said, in his reading of a July 23 press release announcing the rule-making,
(which implied that unsafe DOT-111 tank cars would be off the rails within two years although it
was actually 38 months from the date of the announcement), “That’s a year faster than what the
Canadians have proposed. A lot of people have suggested Canada as a model for what we should
do. Well, we’re a year faster.”
Was Larsen right? Let’s do the tally to see who is really Number One.
Round 1: Date when legacy DOT-111s are off the rails—Canada 1; USA -1
Neither US nor Canadian regulators proposed an immediate ban on all legacy DOT-111s
transporting Bakken crude oil. That’s what ought to happen, and it is the action sought by the
recent EarthJustice formal legal petition to the USDOT, but that’s not what we’re seeing.
In fact, US regulators proposed a three year-plus delay for even the initial phase-out. Take a look
at USDOT ‘s proposed timeline for removing DOT-111 tank cars. The upshot is that according to
157
the proposed rule in the US, trains with of 20 or more tank cars of Bakken crude oil or ethanol
will not be able to use DOT-111s after October 1, 2017.
In Canada, by contrast, legacy DOT-111s will not be allowed for ethanol or crude oil after May 1,
2017, according the proposed rule by Transport Canada. (Canada’s proposed rule would allow
the use of CPC-1232 standard tank cars up to May 1, 2020 for highly hazardous materials.)
In other words, Canada has proposed to phase out legacy DOT-111s for crude oil and ethanol
faster than the US. What’s more, the Canadian phase out covers all oil and ethanol trains, not just
those comprised of 20 or more tank cars.
 That’s 1 point to Canada for a faster phase out of legacy DOT-111s carrying hazardous
fuels. They would have received another point if CPC-1232s were also phased out after
May 1, 2017 and we will have to wait for the final rule to see what they decide.

But that’s not the end of this round. We’re penalizing Team America for USDOT’s deceptive
press release on its proposed new tank car rules because it implied a shorter phase out that it
really offers. The fed’s statement says [emphasis added]: “Specifically, within two years, it
proposes the phase out of the use of older DOT 111 tank cars for the shipment of packing group I
flammable liquids, including most Bakken crude oil…”
Which is highly misleading. In fact, the press release omitted the start date for the phase out—
October 1, 2015—and so it should have read “within 38 months.”
 Penalty against USA for a bad press release that misled the media and the public (and
apparently Rep. Larsen) about when DOT-111s would be actually be (partially) phased
out. Minus 1 point.
Round 2: Immediate removal of the worst-of-the-worst DOT-111 tank cars—Canada 2; USA 0
On April 23, 2014, Canadian regulators required the immediate removal of 5,000 of the least safe
DOT-111s from hazardous service. No phase out, no comment period, just an immediate halt in
using these incredibly unsafe tank cars from hauling hazardous materials to protect the public
from an imminent danger. The banned tank cars have a construction weakness in the bottom of
the tank car frame that is very prone to failure in a derailment. In Canada, these tank cars now
have to carry a big label that says “Do not load with dangerous goods in Canada.”
Yet in the US, regulators have not taken immediate action on these worst-of-the-worst DOT-111s,
not even in the proposed rules. In the US, you can basically just paint over the Canadian warning
label and keep using these same tank cars to ship Bakken crude or ethanol all the way until
October 1, 2017 under the proposed rule. Even then, you can keep on using them just as long as
the shipment is less than 20 carloads.
 We award 2 points to Canada for a) listening to their Transportation Safety Board; and b)
and taking immediate action to remove the most hazardous DOT-111s from service.
Round 3: Improved tank car standards—Canada 1; USA 1
158
In the draft rule, US regulators have proposed a new specification DOT-117 tank car to replace
the DOT-111 for use in unit trains of ethanol or Bakken crude oil. However, instead of proposing
a single tank car standard based on the best available science, the proposed rule sets out three
options for comment. The weakest option is based on what is known as the CPC-1232 tank car
standard that the industry already voluntarily agreed to use for new tank cars starting in 2010.
Most of the tank cars involved in the Lynchburg, Virginia oil train explosion were CPC-1232s.
On July 2, Canadian officials proposed a rule with an improved tank car design and brakes called
the TC-140 for the transport of flammable liquids, which is equivalent to the best option
proposed by USDOT. However, Canada has proposed a slower phase-in of the improved
standard.
 So, one point each as this round continues to play out. Canada laid down a marker for the
best tank car standard; the final score will depend on the actual rule from the USDOT as
well as the harmonization process between the two countries.
Round 4: Taking on under insurance of railroads for transporting crude oil and ethanol—Canada
2; USA 0
The Lac Megantic accident revealed the oil-by-rail industry is radically underinsured for the risks
of shipping volatile Bakken crude. The railroad involved only had $25 million in liability
insurance and estimates of the total cost to clean up, remediate, and rebuild the town have risen
as high as $2.7 billion. Families who lost loved ones and property owners wiped out by the
accident are having to go to court, likely for years, to sue anyone connected to the shipment for
damages. It is highly likely that provincial and federal taxpayers will end up stuck with a
significant bill for the cleanup. An accident in a more populated area would have an even higher
cost, far exceeding the $1 billion insurance levels that even major railroads like BNSF carry.
In Canada, requiring the oil-by-rail industry to carry sufficient insurance was a central piece of
political leadership’s response to Lac Megantic along with requiring new tank standards—even if
it meant increasing the costs to the energy sector. This was highlighted in the Conservative
Party’s 2013 Throne Speech (equivalent to the President’s State of the Union address): “Our
government will require shippers and railways to carry additional insurance so they are held
accountable. And we will take targeted action to increase the safety of the transportation of
dangerous goods.”
Subsequently, Transport Canada undertook a consultation to deal with the liability issue.
In the US, despite several Congressional hearings, there has not been a question about railroad
under insurance. The political focus has instead been on pushing the Department of
Transportation to issue new rules for tank cars to make sure, in effect, that emergency responders
have enough foam to spray on the embers of a populated area after an oil train explosion. Elected
officials have not wrestled with who will have to pay for the potentially billions of dollars in
uninsured damages and whether its appropriate that taxpayers will likely have to pick up the tab.
In fairness, the US Transportation Department did acknowledge in its Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis (an accompaniment to the proposed rules) that one reason for the implementing rules to
159
make crude oil and ethanol transport safer is because “shippers and rail companies are not
insured against the full liability of the consequences of incidents involving hazardous materials.”
 Two points for Canada for taking seriously the problem of under insurance of oil and
ethanol trains. Zero points for the USA ignoring it at the leadership level.
Round 5: Taking on misclassification of Bakken crude oil—Canada 1; USA 1
At the heart of the hazardous materials shipping system is the proper classification of the product
being transported, which is the responsibility of the shipper. Regulators have found instances
where Bakken crude oil was misclassified and being transported incorrectly. For example, the oil
in the train that exploded in Lac Megantic was misclassified as “Packing Group III,” the lowest
hazard, when it should have been classified as “Packing Group I,” the most dangerous. Federal
agencies are now focused on ensuring that shippers are properly classifying crude oil for
transportation in accordance with regulations.
Along with the draft rules addressing classification issues, the US feds concurrently released
a report summarizing an analysis of Bakken crude oil. Unsurprisingly, the federal data show that
crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota tends to be more volatile and flammable than
other crude oils. The new findings contradict recent assertions by the American Petroleum
Institute that, based on their private studies, Bakken oil is no different from other flammable
liquids commonly shipped in DOT-111s.
On July 2014, Canada adopted changes to its hazardous material regulations to address
classification problems found with products like Bakken crude oil. However, Canada’s
Transportation Safety Board has raised concerns that Bakken crude oil is still being misclassified,
despite assurances from the federal government that everything is okay.
 One point to the US for pushing back on the oil companies’ idea that Bakken oil is not
exceptionally dangerous. One point to Canada for quickly addressing misclassification,
though it looks like they have more work to do.
Final score: Canada 7; USA 1
With a few exceptions the Canadian regulatory response to oil trains has been far superior to the
American approach. In many instances, they have bypassed drawn out rule-making and issued
emergency orders to address safety issues raised by their independent safety agency.
That’s not to say that Canada’s requirements are sufficient, but rather to point out just what a
poor showing US regulators and leadership are making when it comes to protecting the American
public and taxpayer from exploding oil trains.
October 7, 2014 - Major train derailment and fire near Wadena,
Sask.
Officials worried about toxic smoke from burning railcars
160
CBC News Posted: Oct 07, 2014 12:27 PM CT Last Updated: Oct 08, 2014 10:39 AM CT
There were 100 railcars in the train. CN said 26 left the tracks in the derailment. (Liam
Richards/The Canadian Press)
A major train derailment has occurred near Wadena, Sask., prompting authorities to keep people
well back from smouldering railcars and smoke that may be toxic.
The CN Rail derailment happened at 10:40 a.m. CST Tuesday about 20 kilometres west of the
town of 1,300, which is about 230 kilometres east of Saskatoon.
There were no reported injuries. CN said two employees were on the train at the time of the
derailment and both are safe.
Motorists in the Watson area were forced to take alternate routes to stay clear of the derailment.
(Peter Mills/CBC)
Officials are worried about toxic smoke from the burning cars and are keeping people eight
kilometres from the scene.
"It's huge," Alison Squires, editor of the Wadena News, told CBC News describing what she saw
shortly after the derailment. "It's like taller than a [grain] elevator."
About 50 people were evacuated from Clair, a small community about one kilometre from the
crash. People were also evacuated from other farm homes in the area, the RCMP said.
Students at the school in Wadena were being kept indoors during the school day.
"Huge plumes of smoke and fire," Squires said. "RCMP and obviously local fire departments are
there. They're detouring traffic."
A spokesman for CN said the train was hauling 100 cars, 26 of which derailed.
Jason Evans, who lives in Clair, Sask., is worried about livestock he has in the area and smoke
from the fire. (Peter Mills/CBC)
Six of them contained hazardous materials, including four that had either hydrochloric acid or
caustic soda.
The other two had petroleum distillates, CN said.
Heavy smoke and fire were seen coming out of the crashed cars for several hours. By late
afternoon, the smoke had diminished. Access to the site was limited, but observations from just
outside Clair suggested the fire had been put out.
161
Traffic is being detoured around routes that may be downwind of the derailment, and provincial
government officials said detours will remain in place until the areas are safe.
"I'm concerned for my animals," Jason Evans, who lives in Clair, said Tuesday. He said he has
livestock in the area near the crash site.
"I've got 600 head of buffalo there," he said, noting that smoke appeared to be heading in their
directions. "It's going over the top of my pastures, its going over the top of my hay field.
"Is that going to affect my hay and my livestock is what I'm kind of interested to find out," he
said.
In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, the province said a rapid response team made up of
emergency management and fire safety experts had been sent to the scene along with specialized
air quality monitoring equipment from the Environment Ministry.
"Environment [officials] will be monitoring air quality in the area," the statement said. "They will
be working with CN and the local officials as part of a co-ordinated response."
Evacuation centre in Wadena
People who were told to leave the area, from Clair and rural homes, are being sent to Wadena
where an operations and reception centre has been set up.
There was no immediate word on how long the evacuation order will be in effect, but officials
said a media briefing and update would be provided Wednesday at 11 a.m.
A CN hazardous materials team was seen en route to the site.
Officials from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada were on their way to the site
October 14, 2013 - Lac-Mégantic Blast Leaves Impact On Town,
Rail Industry
October 14, 2013 4:34 PM ET
From Brian Mann
Three months ago, a train carrying American crude oil derailed and exploded in the heart of LacMégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.
Local leaders now say recovering from the disaster will take much more time, effort, and money
than they expected.
Industry experts say the accident could change the way oil and other dangerous chemicals are
transported on trains in North America.
An Empty Village
162
"It's been left for weeks, everybody quit so fast," says Robert Mercier, head of Lac-Mégantic's
environment department, as he walks down his town's main street.
He grew up here. In a normal year, he says, the street cafes and tourist shops would have been
busy with visitors who come to see the colorful fall leaves. Now, it's a ghost town.
People fled in the early morning of July 6 as massive fireballs rolled into the sky. Mercier says he
was sleeping in an apartment nearby when the first tank car erupted in flames.
"We just didn't know what it was — volcano, meteorite, what is that? Once you don't know,
you're just afraid. You just run. You run," he says.
A few weeks ago, locals loaded computers, mementos, and furniture onto U-Haul trucks before
the city was closed off for at least a year.
Contaminated
Parts of the city were flattened by the blast. Underneath the remaining buildings, cleanup crews
have discovered that much of Lac-Mégantic's downtown is saturated with heavy metals — lead,
arsenic, copper — and that thick crude oil. Three months after the explosion, they are still
pumping spilled crude oil and chemicals from underneath what used to be a gorgeous lakefront
street.
In his office, Mercier spreads out a map on his desk, showing the vast scope of the cleanup.
"So, the petroleum mostly flew on the ground, on this side to the lake. So, the lake was burning
for a big part," he says. "That was something to see, yeah? You can see here, all the landscape in
this area is destroyed ... all these houses are gone now. Nothing there, nothing there."
A New Downtown
A fleet of huge trucks and backhoes is laying the foundation for an entirely new downtown.
Officials have decided that a new business district is needed to replace what's been destroyed or
contaminated.
About $116 million has been pledged for that effort, but no one's sure what the final price tag
will be. The province of Quebec and Canada's national government are feuding over how much
to spend and who should pay.
Caught up in this turmoil are people like Guy Boulet, who owns a furniture store just outside the
contaminated zone. His sister, Marie-France, died in the fire-storm.
Weeks later, Boulet sits behind the counter in his shop. He looks exhausted. Marie-France's
remains have never been recovered from the wreckage.
After a long day spent making deliveries, trying to get his life back to normal, his family is
finally preparing for his sister's remembrance.
"It's a simple ceremony right at the church," he says. "She was a really good person."
163
Boulet says people here are resigned to the idea that the healing process will take a long, long
time.
"We have to be really patient. Because nobody knows exactly how long it will be. We hope
nobody forgets, you know, because we will need help. We need help," he says.
Warning Signs
Adding to the pain and frustration, a growing number of experts and government officials in the
U.S. and Canada say that there were plenty of warning signs long before disaster struck.
Robert Mercier, Lac-Mégantic's environment officer, says his office tried to raise questions about
the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway and its growing shipments of hazardous oils and
chemicals.
"We were very worried about the conditions of the rail — we were talking about that many
times," Mercier says. "It was a great concern about the train and the condition of the rail and all
these tanks that were passing every day."
A Sub-par Freight Car
Since July, investigators in the U.S. and Canada have focused on a wide range of red flags —
from the condition of the tracks, to the staffing level of these big industrial trains, to new
evidence that the hazardous chemicals aboard the Lac-Mégantic train were mislabeled.
But much of the scrutiny has fallen on the type of freight car that erupted that day — the big,
sausage-shaped tank car known in the industry as a DOT-111A.
"It's rigid, it's prone to derailment, and when it derails because of the coupling design, they're
prone to puncture," says Lloyd Burton, a professor at the University of Colorado who studies rail
transport of hazardous materials.
It turns out DOT-111A's make up two-thirds of the tank cars used in the U.S. and Canada —
they're like the workhorse of the rail industry.
Thousands of them roll through towns and cities across America every day. And Burton says
they're carrying increasing amounts of increasingly volatile crude oil and chemicals produced by
North America's booming energy industry.
"The most dangerous crude, the highest sulfur crude, the most explosive and most flammable
materials are being carried in tank cars," he says, "And they're being carried in tank cars that are
simply not equal to the task."
Changing The Tanks
For decades, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has been issuing strongly worded
reports about the safety of these very same DOT-111A's, calling them "inadequate" for carrying
"dangerous products."
Despite those warnings, the rail industry has resisted replacing its tank car fleet.
164
Newer double-hulled cars are expensive and railroad executives have argued that freight trains
overall have a strong safety record. But last month, the CEO of one of North America's biggest
railroads signaled a major shift.
Speaking on the Business News Network, Hunter Harrison — head of Canadian Pacific — said
the disaster in Lac-Mégantic had changed the debate over DOT-111A's.
"Well, I think they'll be phased out as far as dangerous commodities. We're much more, rightfully
so, sensitive about the environment today than we were when these cars were built," he said.
"Shame on us as society."
Experts say phasing out DOT-111A's in North America would take at least five years.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation launched a new rule-making process that
could determine once and for all whether the industry will be forced to replace its tanker fleet.
That review is now on hold because of the government shutdown in Washington.
December 15, 2014 - Inspectors find 100 defects on crude oil trains,
tracks
Khurram Saeed, [email protected] 3:49 p.m. EST December 15, 2014
A broken rail, defective train car wheels and missing bolts on the tracks were among some of the
problems state and federal teams found during its most recent round of statewide inspections of
oil trains and the rail lines they use.
They identified 100 defects, including eight safety defects that require immediate action, Gov.
Andrew Cuomo’s office said in a release.
Inspection teams from the state Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad
Administration on Dec. 9 examined 704 crude oil tank cars and about 95 miles of track as part of
the state’s on-going response to a surge in rail shipments of Bakken crude across nearly 1,000
miles of New York.
They did not look at the River Line, the track owned by CSX Corp. that runs through the Hudson
Valley, including Rockland. As many as 30 trains carrying 80 to 100 tank cars filled with
explosive crude oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota head south to East Coast
refineries.
But the inspection of 15 miles of CSX-owned mainline track near Albany found a critical switch
gauge defect that required a speed reduction, the release said. They also discovered four noncritical defects, including loose bolts. They must be repaired within 30 days.
165
“We have sent inspection crews to check rail tracks and crude oil cars across New York and we
continue to find critical safety defects that put New Yorkers at risk,” Cuomo said in a statement.
Crude oil tank cars, especially the older DOT-111 models are also in the spotlight because they
have been involved in several accidents, including an derailment and explosion that killed 47
people in Quebec in July 2013. Bakken crude is volatile and can catch fire should the tank
rupture or derail.
The federal government is reviewing rules that would increase safety standards.
At the CSX-owned Frontier Rail Yard in Buffalo, 106 DOT-111 crude oil tank cars were checked
and three had found to have critical defects, including a cracked weld, a missing bolt and one
inoperative brake assembly.
CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle said in an email that the railroad “appreciates Governor Cuomo’s
continued focus on making the safe transportation of energy products even safer,” adding that
CSX is “committed to strong, ongoing and long-term coordination with state and local officials.”
Since the state began its “inspection blitz” last February, inspectors have examined 7,368 rail
cars (including 5,360 DOT-111s) and 2,659 miles of track, uncovering 840 defects, and issuing
12 hazardous materials violations. The state recently hired five new rail inspectors.
November 25, 2014 - Gov’t Data Sharpens Focus on Crude-Oil Train
Routes
A ProPublica analysis of federal government data adds new details to what’s known about the
routes taken by trains carrying crude oil. Local governments are often unaware of the potential
dangers they face.
by Isaiah Thompson, special to ProPublica, Nov. 25, 2014, 12:24 p.m.
The oil boom underway in North Dakota has delivered jobs to local economies and helped bring
the United States to the brink of being a net energy exporter for the first time in generations.
But moving that oil to the few refineries with the capacity to process it is presenting a new
danger to towns and cities nationwide — a danger many appear only dimly aware of and are illequipped to handle.
Much of North Dakota's oil is being transported by rail, rather than through pipelines, which are
the safest way to move crude. Tank carloads of crude are up 50 percent this year from last. Using
rail networks has saved the oil and gas industry the time and capital it takes to build new
pipelines, but the trade-off is greater risk: Researchers estimates that trains are three and a half
times as likely as pipelines to suffer safety lapses.
Indeed, since 2012, when petroleum crude oil first began moving by rail in large quantities, there
have been eight major accidents involving trains carrying crude in North America. In the worst of
166
these incidents, in July, 2013, a train derailed at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec and exploded, killing 47
and burning down a quarter of the town. Six months later, another crude-bearing train derailed
and exploded in Casselton, North Dakota, prompting the evacuation of most of the town's 2,300
residents.
In those and other cases, local emergency responders were overwhelmed by the conflagrations
resulting from these accidents. Residents often had no idea that such a dangerous cargo, and in
such volume, was being transported through their towns.
Out of the disasters came a scramble for information. News outlets around the country began
reporting the history of problems associated with the DOT-111 railroad tank cars carrying
virtually all of the crude.
Local officials, environmental groups, and concerned citizens began to ask what routes these
trains were taking and whether the towns in their paths were ready should an accident occur.
In July, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation ordered railroads to disclose route information to state
emergency management officials. Railroads had fought hard to keep this information private,
citing security concerns. Even after federal regulators required more disclosure, railroads
pressured many state governments to withhold their reports from the public. Some have come
out, often as a result of public records requests by news organizations: The Associated Press has
obtained disclosures in several states initially unwilling to release them.
Map: Where Do Trains Carry Crude Oil?
Our interactive map uses federal government data to show where safety incidents on trains were
reported, where each train began its journey, and where it was ultimately headed.
Explore the app »
167
Still, those disclosures offer scant detail, often consisting of little more than a list of counties
through which crude oil is passing, without further specifics.
There have been attempts to fill in the blanks. KQED in Northern California, for example,
combined the information disclosed in federal route reports with maps of the major railroads to
show where trains carrying crude passed through California. The environmental group Oil
Change International superimposed major refineries and other facilities that handle crude oil onto
a national railroad map.
A ProPublica analysis of data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration adds new details by plotting out where trains carrying crude have experienced
safety incidents, most of them minor. The data shows such incidents in more than 250
municipalities over the last four years. We've used the data to create an interactive map showing
where safety incidents on trains were reported, where each train began its journey, and where it
was ultimately headed.
The data also shows that factors that contributed to major, or even catastrophic, accidents have
also been present in hundreds of minor ones: outdated tank car models; component failures; and
missing, damaged and loose parts.
Bit by bit, a more realistic notion of where the dangers of crude-bearing trains are most
substantial is emerging.
168
"Frankly, the [previous] disclosures weren't of that much use," says Kelly Huston, a spokesman
for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, one of the first state agencies to
make those disclosures available for anyone on its website. When it comes to a detailed picture
of where crude is moving, Huston says, "The expectation of the public is very far from the reality
of what we're actually getting."
The hazardous materials data reviewed by ProPublica adds to that picture.
Only a handful of places around the country have the refinery capacity and infrastructure
necessary to handle the massive amounts of oil being extracted from North Dakota's Bakken
Shale: Bakersfield, Carson, and Long Beach in California; St. James, Lake Charles, Lacassine in
coastal Louisiana; Philadelphia, Paulsboro, New Jersey. Delaware City, Delaware in the MidAtlantic.
These cities have become the terminuses for "unit trains" carrying up to 100 tank cars, each
containing as much as 30,000 gallons of crude oil. These endpoints also have shaped the paths
along which crude-bearing trains now cross hundreds of communities, many of which have never
seen such traffic. Tracks all but abandoned for years have sprung back to life on account of the
oil boom.
The vulnerabilities of the DOT-111 tank cars in which much of the oil is moved are well known
by now. For decades, federal officials have cited concerns over their relatively thin shells, which
are prone to puncturing or rupturing in an accident and releasing the hazardous material inside.
They also have other components prone to damage, including protruding fittings often left
unprotected, and hinged lids held on by bolts that have a history of coming loose, especially if
not properly tightened by the original shipper.
When a tank car full of oil ruptures, the consequences can be dire. At a panel held by the
National Transportation Safety Board in April, one technical expert with the agency described a
"fireball release," in which "the entire content of the tank car, up to 30,000 gallons, is instantly
released, along with the potential for rocketing car parts." When one tank car ignites, the heat can
set off a chain reaction, causing other cars to explode as well.
In most cases, the tanks cars used to transport crude are supplied by railroad shipping companies,
not railroads themselves. Railroads have typically pushed for more stringent safety requirements
since they have to move the cars. Shipping companies and oil producers have pushed back
against stricter proposals.
In 2011, as the crude-by-rail industry was ramping up and federal regulators were preparing to
introduce new rules, industry groups adopted voluntary safety modifications to add thicker shells
and other protections to new tank cars. But roughly 85 percent of the fleet currently carrying
flammable liquids still consists of the older models. And while PHMSA is expected to issue rules
requiring safer tank cars, railroads will have years to phase in the upgrades and it's not yet clear
to what extent they will be required to retrofit existing cars.
169
For most local fire departments, a blaze involving even a single tank car, let alone many, would
be too much to handle, emergency response officials acknowledge.
"[Most] fire departments don't have the capacity to deal with more than a standard gasoline tank
[fire], which is about 9,000 or 10,000 gallons of fuel," said Richard Edinger, vice chairman of the
International Association of Fire Chief's hazardous materials committee. "Well, one DOT-111 car
holds about 30,000 gallons — that pretty much exceeds our capacity."
Complicating matters, many towns don't even know that trains carrying crude oil are passing
through.
Along the journey south from North Dakota, for example, many trains now make a stop in the
tiny town of El Dorado, Arkansas, population 18,500, bound for a refinery that recently added
capacity to accommodate Bakken crude. The PHMSA hazmat data includes more than a dozen
leaks found on trains headed for the town.
Yet Union County Emergency Management Services deputy director Bobby Braswell, a former
Chief Deputy for the El Dorado Fire Department, was unaware of the new crude traffic and its
potential risks.
"We've got a little old railroad here, but if they transport crude, I don't know," said Braswell in an
interview. If state emergency management officials have a plan to respond to oil train
derailments, they haven't shared it with El Dorado yet: "I don't remember anybody calling about
crude," Braswell said.
Along the trains' route to the Mid-Atlantic, according to PHMSA's hazmat data, is Mineral City,
Ohio, where Tuscarawas county emergency services director Patty Levengood said she didn't
know whether fire departments in her jurisdiction had been trained or otherwise advised on the
new oil traffic. Such planning was "pretty much left to the individual chiefs," she said.
Other responders said they are acutely aware of the new risks facing their towns, and some
expressed alarm. Asked whether his fire department had the capacity to handle a single tank car
fire, Duane Hart, fire chief for Juniata County, Pennsylvania, answered with an emphatic "I know
we don't!" Crude trains now pass through Port Royal, a town of 925 in Juniata County for which
Hart's department provides services.
In many circumstances, all local responders would be able to do in the event of a large tank car
fire is simply let it burn, experts say. At the recent NTSB rail safety panel, Gregory Noll, a
chairperson for the hazardous materials committee of the National Fire Protection Association,
summarized the situation bluntly.
"There's very little that we as a responder are going to do," he said, "other than... to isolate the
area, remove people from the problem, and allow the incident to go its natural course until it
essentially burns down to a level where we can extinguish it."
But that approach would still involve tremendous damage in the many densely populated areas
through which crude is now moving by rail, officials acknowledge.
170
"The standard evacuation is typically a half-mile," said Jeff Simpson, a 30-year firefighter who
lives in North Virginia and teaches a course called "Training for Railroad Emergencies."
"But if you're in the middle of a big city, the footprint is going to be much bigger."
The Pittsburgh-based nonprofit news organization PublicSource reported in August that up to 40
percent of that city's roughly 300,000 residents live within the potential evacuation zone of trains
carrying crude through the city.
Another Pennsylvania metropolis, Philadelphia, has become one of the biggest destinations in the
U.S. for Bakken crude thanks to newly retrofitted refineries and a brand new rail unloading
facility opened just two years ago.
The city appears frequently in hazmat reports: In at least 65 cases over the last two years, tank
cars bound for or arriving in Philadelphia were found to have loose, leaking or missing safety
components. These parts are meant to prevent flammable contents from escaping in the event of
an accident.
There was a more serious incident last January, when a train full of oil derailed a few miles from
the city's downtown. Luckily, no one was injured. The train was soon righted and the railroad
made repairs, assuring city officials that the danger had passed.
But even after the derailment, Philadelphia "has not issued new plans, directives, or protocols in
response to the increase of crude oil shipments," wrote city director of Emergency Management
Samantha Phillips in an email to ProPublica.
The Philadelphia County Local Emergency Planning Committee "has not been active on the
transportation of Bakken crude oil," Phillips added.
The agency's website contains no emergency information specific to a fire involving crude oil, or
any other hazardous substance, other than a video featuring " Wally Wise-Guy, the Shelter in
Place Turtle."
November 10, 2014 - Tories tout safety measures amid slashes to
transport budget
Spending by Transport Canada on marine safety has shrunk 27 per cent, while aviation and rail
safety spending are down 20 per cent or more.
Transport Minister Lisa Raitt announced last month that 10 additional rail safety auditors would
be hired across the country in response to the Lac-Megantic train derailment disaster last year.
By: Bruce Cheadle The Canadian Press, Published on Mon Nov 10 2014
171
OTTAWA—The Harper government has made dramatic cuts in spending on aviation, marine
and rail transport safety over the past five years, even as it was touting new safety measures in
the transportation sector.
The latest figures from the federal government’s public accounts show actual spending by
Transport Canada on marine safety has plunged 27 per cent since 2009-10, while aviation and
rail safety spending are both down 20 per cent or more.
Budget cuts to marine and rail safety have come over a particularly sensitive period, during
which oil-by-rail shipments increased exponentially and the government spent millions
promoting the safe transport of oil by tankers on Canada’s coasts in order to bolster pipeline
approvals.
Last month, Transport Minister Lisa Raitt announced that 10 additional rail safety auditors would
be hired across Canada in response to last year’s horrific oil train crash in Lac-Mégantic, Que.,
which claimed 47 lives.
Raitt says Transport Canada has plenty of budget room to handle the new hires without
additional funding.
“While there have been spending cuts, rail safety oversight activities have not been cut,” Ashley
Kelahear, Raitt’s spokeswoman, said in an email Monday.
“The safety and security of Canadians remain our government’s top priorities.”
An official with Transport Canada said in an email that “core services remain properly funded
and aligned with departmental priorities.”
“Savings were deliberately focused on reduction of overhead, consolidation of administrative and
support services.”
That’s precisely the claim that the independent Parliamentary Budget Office wants to test, but has
been repeatedly stonewalled by multiple government departments — Transport Canada included
— that refuse to disclose how and where they are slashing their budgets.
“There’s a stark contradiction between the statements coming from the minister in the House,
saying our first priority is the safety of Canadians, and how they manage those departments,”
Matthew Kellway, the NDP deputy transport critic, said an interview.
Improved safety during funding cuts is “entirely implausible,” he said.
“While they’re cutting, the issue they have to contend with is growing — particularly in rail
safety, where it’s growing at exponential rates.”
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates that by 2016 the rail industry will
move 700,000 barrels of western Canadian oil a day, up from less than 300,000 barrels in all of
2009.
172
“It is very difficult to believe a department can find efficiencies at a time when the transportation
of dangerous goods, the transportation of oil, has increased by over 1,600 per cent in the last
three years,” said Liberal transport critic David McGuinty.
“If they have evidence to substantiate their claims that this is all about efficiencies, let them
provide it.”
Last February, a rail safety audit of Transport Canada found that “continuing budget reductions
have had a major impact on the (Transport Dangerous Goods) Directorate and it is most likely
that new funding will be needed to manage the additional workload” associated with new, postLac Mégantic rules on rail safety.
In fact, funding under the “transport of dangerous goods” did increase to $14.7 million last year,
up from $12.7 million spent in 2012-13. Spending on the dangerous goods directorate averaged
$13.9 million in the three previous years.
By way of comparison, the Conservatives budgeted $16.5 million last year, according to
supplementary estimates, to advertise “responsible resource development,” a program that
includes new safety rules for the marine transport of oil, such as double-hulled tankers.
“We’ve been raising concerns about changes in the way that Transport Canada is moving for a
number of years now,” said Christine Collins, the national president of the Union of Canadian
Transportation Employees.
“We’ve been raising concerns for the safety of the travelling public.”
Collins, whose union represents 8,000 federal transport workers, including about 2,000 at
Transport Canada, said the department’s safety groups appear intent on hiring about 130 people
in all by next spring.
However, retirements and poaching by the more lucrative private sector mean real employment
gains are difficult, she added.
“At the end of the day, in rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods, we’ll be slightly
above current numbers. But in civil aviation and marine, we will be struggling.”
December 2, 2014 - Green groups sue DOT over oil-by-rail
regulations
The groups want the Transportation Department to block refiners and other shippers from using
older, rupture-prone tank cars to move crude from the Bakken formation in North Dakota.
WASHINGTON — Environmental groups on Tuesday sued the Department of Transportation in
a bid to keep crude oil out of older railroad tank cars.
The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by Earthustice on
173
behalf of the Sierra Club and ForestEthics, challenges the Transportation Department’s oversight
of the surge in crude carried on the nation’s railroads.
In particular, the groups want the Transportation Department to block refiners and other shippers
from using older, rupture-prone DOT-111 tank cars to move crude from the Bakken formation in
North Dakota.
The Transportation Department has issued an alert warning that Bakken crude is highly
flammable, although industry representatives have disputed that characterization.
And while regulators at the department have proposed rules to phase out the older tank cars, it
could allow years to replace them with newer, more resilient models.
Related story: Oil industry wants seven to 10 years to phase out tank cars
That’s not fast enough, said Sierra Club attorney Devorah Ancel.
“The oil industry wants to double the number of tanker cars moving crude oil on U.S. tracks
before removing any of these antiquated are,” Ancel said. “And the Department of Transportation
is playing along, allowing industry up to six years to get these cars off the tracks. That’s too long
to wait for a recall of these dangerous tank cars.”
The environmental groups filed a petition in July asking the Transportation Department to issue
an emergency order prohibiting Bakken crude from being shipped in the legacy DOT-111 tank
cars.
In September, the organizations filed a lawsuit because their petition had not gotten a response.
In November, the Transportation Department denied the groups’ petition.
The oil industry’s increasing reliance on rail — designed to overcome a shortage of pipelines to
ferry crude out of booming fields in North Dakota and other parts of the country — has prompted
alarm in some trackside communities. The risks were highlighted by last year’s explosion of a
runaway oil train in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed nearly four dozen people and devastated
the city’s downtown.
December 6, 2014 - CA Feather River train derailment raises new
concerns about health and safety
BY TONY [email protected]
12/06/2014 11:00 AM 12/06/2014 9:19 PM
The Feather River north of Sacramento serves as a life source for California, providing drinking
water to millions of residents as far south as Los Angeles and helping irrigate nearly 1 million
174
acres of farmland. To accomplish its task, the river first runs a gantlet – snaking through a steep
canyon in the shadows of a busy freight rail line with a history of derailments.
The river’s precarious position was highlighted again last month when nearly a dozen cars from a
derailed corn train tumbled down the mountain, splitting open and spilling kernels and husks into
the river.
Although cleanup efforts could last weeks, the environmental impact appears to be mild, state
officials said, with no reported fish kills and only minimal water-quality impact.
“Luckily, corn is pretty much inert, a low-threat material,” said George Day, senior engineer with
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Most of the corn landed on the hillside above the river. But the incident rang alarm bells. State
and local officials note that the train easily could have been one of those that now carry 100 cars
of crude oil, or other hazardous substances, through the canyon.
The numbers of crude oil trains entering the state via mountain passes and river canyons is
expected to jump substantially in the next two years as coastal refineries lay plans to buy as much
as 22 percent of the state’s imported oil from burgeoning fields in North Dakota, Canada,
Colorado, Texas and other states.
Already, one all-crude-oil train rolls through the Feather River Canyon weekly, passing through
Sacramento on its way to the Bay Area, and another train began regular runs in November along
the Sacramento River past Dunsmuir and Redding en route to Kern County.
Nationally, train shipments of crude oil have more than tripled in the last four years, federal data
show. Several explosive derailments, including one that killed 47 people last year in a Canadian
town, have prompted federal officials to rewrite federal regulations on train car safety standards
and other rail safety features.
While much of the ongoing crude-by-rail safety debate in Sacramento has focused on the
potential for an oil spill in an urban area, the early morning spill on Nov. 25 in the Feather River
Canyon underscores the more likely scenario of a derailment in remote rural terrain, harming
wildlife and fouling drinking water.
“This easily could have been 11 cars of ... crude,” said Plumas County Emergency Services
Director Jerry Sipe. “The environmental consequences could be substantial.”
Unlike corn, oil could flow with the river for miles, killing wildlife along the way, and making
the water unusable for months or years, said Day, the water-quality engineer. “Oil sticks around.
It adheres to rocks. It could last.”
A derailment and chemical spill outside Dunsmuir in 1991 obliterated wildlife in the Sacramento
River for 40 miles. Day said it took three years before vegetation was restored and fish had
175
repopulated.
For some key players, the corn spill served as a bracing practice run. “We used it as an
opportunity to test what we believe we are going to need to do in an oil spill, to get some folks
some real experience,” said Alexia Retallack, spokeswoman for the state Office of Spill
Prevention and Response, which coordinated with Union Pacific, the track owner, on cleanup.
Crews threw booms into the river downstream to capture and vacuum up floating corn and husks,
the same maneuver they would use to corral floating oil. UP workers pulled the derailed cars out
of the canyon and vacuumed corn off the slope. The company repaired the line and reopened it
that same day. Sipe, the Plumas County official, said UP likely will have divers out this week to
vacuum corn from the river bottom.
UP officials said the cause of the derailment, which took place near Rich Bar Road and Highway
70, is under investigation. Paul King, a rail safety official with the state Public Utilities
Commission, said federal officials have told him the cause appeared to be a broken rail.
Retallack said the state spill-prevention office plans a meeting when the work is done at which
emergency responders can share perspectives on what went well and what needs to be improved.
In response to the spill, UP spokesman Aaron Hunt said, the railroad is “increasing our track
inspections in the Feather River Canyon with advanced scanning equipment that uses ultrasound
waves. We are currently following standard operating procedure by operating trains at slower
speeds as we remediate the incident site.”
The spill prompted Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, last week to call on Gov. Jerry Brown to place
a moratorium on the transport of crude oil and other hazardous materials on trains “through our
most treacherous passes” until the state can ensure that public health and the environment are
protected.
Hill represents San Bruno, where a neighborhood was devastated when a natural gas pipeline
exploded in 2010. Had last month’s derailment resulted in a spill of oil, he said, it could have
caused serious contamination in Lake Oroville, the state’s second-largest reservoir.
“This incident serves as a warning alarm to the state of California,” Hill wrote in a letter to the
governor.
Federal regulations typically preempt states from imposing their own restrictions on railroads,
investing the federal government with almost all regulatory authority. The railroads recently sued
California over its insistence that the railroads submit spill prevention and cleanup plans to the
state.
Mark Ghilarducci, director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, said the
state needs to work with the railroads to ensure safer shipments.
“These trains are going to come through,” Ghilarducci said. “We need to work together with the
176
industry to put every safety precaution possible in place.”
In Plumas County, Sipe said he hopes local responders can get funding from the state, the federal
government or the railroads for oil spill response equipment and training. He said that might
include stockpiles of booms to contain floating oil, and pads to absorb the oil at strategic points.
“Sacramento is three hours away,” he said. “We are going to be dealing with it on our own the
first few hours.”
Sipe said he also hopes the spill will prompt UP to forge a closer working relationship with local
officials.
“As soon as we get through this incident,” he said, “that is the (phone) call we will have.”
December 16, 2014 - Threatening America Oil Trains: Unsafe (and
Unnecessary) at Any Speed
DECEMBER 16, 2014 by RALPH NADER
Back in 1991 the National Transportation Safety Board first identified oil trains as unsafe — the
tank cars, specifically ones called DOT-111s, were too thin and punctured too easily, making
transport of flammable liquids like oil unreasonably dangerous. As bad as this might sound, at the
very least there was not a lot of oil being carried on the rails in 1991.
Now, in the midst of a North American oil boom, oil companies are using fracking and tar sands
mining to produce crude in remote areas of the U.S. and Canada. To get the crude to refineries on
the coasts the oil industry is ramping up transport by oil trains. In 2008, 9,500 crude oil tank cars
moved on US rails. In 2013 the number was more than 400,000! With this rapid growth comes a
looming threat to public safety and the environment. No one — not federal regulators or local
firefighters — are prepared for oil train derailments, spills and explosions.
Unfortunately, the rapid increase in oil trains has already meant many more oil train disasters.
Railroads spilled more oil in 2013 than in the previous 40 years combined.
Trains are the most efficient way to move freight and people. This is why train tracks run through
our cities and towns. Our rail system was never designed to move hazardous materials, however;
if it was, train tracks would not run next to schools and under football stadiums.
Last summer, environmental watchdog group ForestEthics released a map of North America that
shows probable oil train routes. Using Google, anyone can check to see if their home or office is
near an oil train route.
ForestEthics used census data to calculate that more than 25 millionAmericans live in the oil
177
train blast zone (that being the one-mile evacuation area in the case of a derailment and fire.)
This is clearly a risk not worth taking — oil trains are the Pintos of the rails. Most of these trains
are a mile long, pulling 100-plus tank cars carrying more than 3 million gallons of explosive
crude. Two-thirds of the tank cars used to carry crude oil today were considered a “substantial
danger to life, property, and the environment” by federal rail safety officials back in 1991.
The remaining one-third of the tank cars are not much better — these more “modern” cars are
tested at 14 to 15 mph, but the average derailment speed for heavy freight trains is 24 mph. And
it was the most “modern” tank cars that infamously derailed, caught fire, exploded and poisoned
the river in Lynchburg, West Virginia, last May. Other derailments and explosions in North
Dakota and Alabama made national news in 2014.
The most alarming demonstration of the threat posed by these trains happened in Quebec in July
2013 — an oil train derailed and exploded in the City of Lac Megantic, killing 47 people and
burning a quarter of the city to the ground. The fire burned uncontrollably, flowing through the
city, into and then out of sewers, and into the nearby river. Firefighters from across the region
responded, but an oil fire cannot be fought with water, and exceptionally few fire departments
have enough foam flame retardant to control a fire from even a single 30,000 gallon tank car,
much less the millions of gallons on an oil train.
Given the damage already done and the threat presented, Canada immediately banned the oldest
of these rail cars and mandated a three-year phase-out of the DOT-111s. More needs to be done,
but this is a solid first step. Of course, we share the North American rail network — right now
those banned trains from Canada may very well be transporting oil through your home town
while the Department of Transportation dallies.
The immense public risk these oil trains pose is starting to gain the attention it deserves, but not
yet the response. Last summer, the U.S. federal government began the process of writing new
safety regulations. Industry has weighed in heavily to protect its interest in keeping these trains
rolling. The Department of Transportation, disturbingly, seems to be catering to industry’s needs.
The current draft rules are deeply flawed and would have little positive impact on safety. They
leave the most dangerous cars in service for years. Worse yet, the oil industry would get to more
than double its tank car fleet before being required to decommission any of the older, more
dangerous DOT-111s.
We need an immediate ban on the most dangerous tank cars. We also need to slow these trains
down; slower trains mean fewer accidents, and fewer spills and explosions when they do derail.
The public and local fire fighters must be notified about train routes and schedules, and every oil
train needs a comprehensive emergency response plan for accidents involving explosive Bakken
crude and toxic tar sands. In addition, regulations must require adequate insurance. This is the
least we could expect from Secretary Anthony Foxx, who travels a lot around the country, and the
Department of Transportation.
So far, Secretary Foxx is protecting the oil industry, not ordinary Americans. In fact, Secretary
178
Foxx is meeting with Canadian officials this Thursday, December 18, to discuss oil-by-rail. It is
doubtful, considering Canada’s strong first step, that he will be trying to persuade them to adopt
even stronger regulations. Will Secretary Foxx ask them to weaken what they have done and put
more lives at risk? Time will tell. He has the power, and the mandate, to remove the most
dangerous rail cars to protect public safety but he appears to be heading in the opposite direction.
Earlier this month ForestEthics and the Sierra Club, represented by EarthJustice, filed a lawsuit
against the DOT to require them to fulfill this duty.
Secretary Foxx no doubt has a parade of corporate executives wooing him for lax or no
oversight. But he certainly doesn’t want to have a Lac Megantic-type disaster in the U.S. on his
watch. It is more possible now than ever before, given the massive increase in oil-by-rail traffic.
Pipelines, such as the Keystone XL, are not the answer either. (Keystone oil would be routed for
export to other countries from Gulf ports.) Pipelines can also leak and result in massive damage
to the environment as we have seen in the Kalamazoo, MI spill by the Enbridge Corporation.
Three years later, $1.2 billion spent, and the “clean up” is still ongoing.
Here’s the reality — we don’t need new pipelines and we don’t need oil by rail. This is “extreme
oil,” and if we can’t transport it safely, we can and must say no. Secretary Foxx needs to help
make sure 25 million people living in the blastzone are safe and that means significant
regulations and restrictions on potentially catastrophic oil rail cars.
Rather than choosing either of these destructive options, we are fortunate to be able to choose
safe, affordable cleaner energy and more efficient energy products, such as vehicles and furnaces,
instead. That is the future and it is not a distant future — it’s happening right now.
January 15, 2015 - US Department of Transportation Delays New
Rules on 'Bomb Trains'
By Peter Rugh
January 15, 2015 | 11:10 am
Following a series of derailments, spills, and deadly explosions, the US Department of
Transportation (DOT) proposed new regulations this summer for the shipment of certain types of
crude oil over the nation's railways. DOT received nearly 150,000 public comments and late last
year Congress set a Friday deadline for the department to issue its final rules.
DOT said this week it doesn't expect to publish them until May, which has provoked the ire of
Congress.
"I'm extremely concerned that the Department of Transportation is set to miss the deadline I set to
issue new safety rules for tank cars," Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat representing Washington
State, told VICE News. "The fact of the matter is that these trains are transporting flammable
179
goods with old, outdated, and potentially dangerous tank cars. That's unacceptable, and the
Department owes our communities and the environment new safety measures."
Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine and chairwoman of the Senate appropriations
committee overseeing transportation, said she is likely to raise the issue with Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx during an upcoming budget hearing.
Regardless of the delay, environmentalists and rail industry watchdogs say the department's draft
regulations from the summer hinted that the DOT's final rules are unlikely to provide sufficient
oversight of oil-by-rail transport.
"This administration has shown that it does not intend to regulate the railroads," Fred Millar, an
independent railroad consultant, told VICE News. "What we've got is the pretense of government
regulations."
The rulemaking process has centered on oil shipments from the Bakken formation, located
primarily in North Dakota, where production has boomed over the past decade and helped to
push the United States to the top of the world's oil producing nations. But, as oil production
outstripped pipeline capacity, more and more oil from the Bakken has been delivered to refineries
around the country by train.
The number of tanker cars on US rails jumped from 9,500 carloads in 2008 to 415,000 in 2013,
according to the DOT. The Congressional Research Service reported that 258,541 carloads of
crude traveled over the nation's railroads in the first half of 2014.
An aging type of tanker car called a DOT-111 is the primary vehicle for transporting Bakken
crude. New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, has called the DOT-111 a "ticking time
bomb."
In the last two years, DOT-111s carrying Bakken oil have been involved in major explosions in
Casselton, North Dakota; Lynchburg, Virginia; and Lac-Megantic, Quebec, where the
conflagration killed 47 people and destroyed much of the town. In Philadelphia, a DOT-111
derailed on a bridge, dangling over the Schuylkill River and Interstate 76 for several days before
its operator, CSX, was able to set it upright.
The Transportation Department has presented different options of what its final rules might
entail. It could require rail companies to retrofit a subset of older DOT-111s or phase out their use
altogether. The department also proposed limiting the allowable speed at which trains could
travel through populated areas and requiring companies to inform local emergency personnel that
hazardous cargo would be transported through their jurisdictions.
The American Association of Railroads welcomed the proposed regulations, saying many of them
were measures its members had previously agreed to implement voluntarily.
Critics of the industry, however, fear the final regulations are likely to fall short of what is needed
to avoid future derailments, spills, or catastrophic explosions.
180
"We're talking about high volumes of hazardous material," Sean Dixon of Riverkeeper told VICE
News. "It's not contained behind a fence or guarded off but moving past schools, through
downtowns, and over drinking water supplies."
High on Riverkeeper's list of demands is an immediate ban on DOT-111 cars, rather than a
gradual phase out or retrofitting as DOT has proposed.
A prohibition seems unlikely, even though regulators have known for decades that the cars are
twice as likely to rupture than other models.
DOT has proposed that crude oil carriers retrofit the cars with thicker shells, tighter valves, or
additional brakes. Existing DOT-111 tank cars that have not been retrofitted would be excluded
from transporting Bakken crude in October 2017.
The department might also formalize an agreement it made with AAR imposing a speed limit of
50 miles per hour when transporting Bakken oil. The limit would be reduced to 40 miles per hour
within 46 federally designated urban safety zones, where the risks of casualties are high due to
greater population densities.
DOT data shows, however, that in seven out of thirteen major spills since 2006, trains were
traveling below 40 miles per hour prior to derailing and in all thirteen incidents trains were at
speeds below 50 mph. In Lynchburg, the train was traveling at 23 mph.
"There are plenty of suburbs where the population density and danger is the same as in these 46
safety zones but where a proposed new speed limit wouldn't apply," Dixon told VICE News.
But, say environmental groups, perhaps the most glaring regulatory gap in the forthcoming rules
is they fail to regulate trains carrying oil from the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada. Over
160,000 barrels per day were exported to the US by rail in the first quarter of 2014, according to
the Canadian National Energy Board, up from about 150,000 per day at the end of 2013.
Canadian regulators have mandated the phase out DOT-111s by May 2017. Environmentalists
warn that the deadline could be rolled back in order to harmonize Canadian and US standards.
"The Canadians could either delay the phase-out or else redefine their criteria for what the DOT111s can carry," Eric de Place, Policy Director at the Sightline Institute, told VICE News.
"History has shown they will adjust their rules based on US standards."
A spokeswoman for Canadian Transport Minister Lisa Raitt told Reuters on Wednesday: "I can
confirm that the May 2017 deadline for crude carrying DOT-111s remains."
Follow Peter Rugh on Twitter: @JohnReedsTomb
January 2, 2015 - Oil Train Spills Hit Record Level in 2014
181
By Tony Dokoupil
American oil trains spilled crude oil more often in 2014 than in any year since the federal
government began collecting data on such incidents in 1975, an NBC News analysis shows.
The record number of spills sparked a fireball in Virginia, polluted groundwater in Colorado, and
destroyed a building in Pennsylvania, causing at least $5 million in damages and the loss of
57,000 gallons of crude oil.
By volume, that's dramatically less crude than trains spilled in 2013, when major derailments in
Alabama and North Dakota leached a record 1.4 million gallons -- more than was lost in the prior
40 years combined. But by frequency of spills, 2014 set a new high with 141 "unintentional
releases," according to data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). By comparison, between 1975 and 2012, U.S. railroads averaged just
25 spills a year.
The vast majority of the incidents occurred while the trains were "in transit," in the language of
regulators, rumbling along a network of tracks that pass by homes and through downtowns. They
included three major derailments and seven incidents classified as "serious" because they
involved a fire, evacuation or spill of more than 120 gallons. That's up from five serious incidents
in 2013, the data shows.
"They've got accidents waiting to happen," said Larry Mann, the principal author of the landmark
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970. "Back in 1991 I said, 'One day a community is going to get
wiped out by a freight train. Well, in 2013 that happened and unless something changes it's going
to happen again."
Mann was referring to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, a deadly derailment in Quebec just miles from
the Maine border. A 72-car oil train rolled downhill and exploded on July 6, 2013, killing 47
people and destroying most of the town.
In the months that followed American regulators convened a series of emergency sessions. They
promised sweeping new safeguards related to tank car design, train speed, route and crew size.
To date none of those rules have been finalized.
On January 15 the Department of Transportation missed a deadline set by Congress for final rules
related to tank cars, which have a decades-long history of leaks, punctures, and catastrophic
failure. The rules are being worked on by PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA).
In response to questions from NBC News, PHMSA declined to explain the delay in new rules but
it defended the relative safety of oil-by-rail. "More crude is being transported across the country
than in any time in our history, and we are aggressively developing new safety standards to keep
communities safe," PHMSA spokesperson Susan Lagana said in a statement.
"Last year, over 87,000 tank cars were in use transporting crude oil, and 141 rail crude oil
releases were reported," she continued. "The amount of crude oil released in these spills was less
182
than the capacity of two tank cars."
The FRA declined a request for comment. It did, however, provide data that suggests the
railroads are getting better overall at transporting hazardous material. Between 2004 and 2014,
for example, the number of collisions and derailments involving trains carrying hazardous
material fell by more than half, from 31 to 13, according to the data.
Ed Greenberg, a spokesperson for the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the industry's
principal trade group, said the railroads themselves support stronger tank cars. The oil industry
actually owns most of the cars used to transport its product, he said. That has complicated the
rule-making process and set off a debate over which industry should cover the cost of an upgrade.
Greenberg also sharply disagreed with the idea that oil-by-rail was getting more dangerous. With
40 times more oil being hauled along U.S. rail lines in 2015 than in 2005, he acknowledges that
the raw number of incidents has increased. But he argues that the railroads have never been safer
overall.
"Railroads have dramatically improved their safety over the last three decades, with the 2014
train accident rate trending at being the lowest ever," he told NBC News, citing multi-billiondollar investments in new cars, tracks, and workers.
Last year, he added, 99.97 percent of all hazardous material on the rails reached its destination
without incident. Of the 141 oil spills included in the federal data, meanwhile, the AAR
calculates that fewer than 10 involved the loss of more than a barrel of oil.
But critics say that's little comfort to the estimated 25 million Americans who within the onemile evacuation zone that the US Department of Transportation recommends in the event of an
oil train-derailment.
"Moving oil from one place to another is always risky, and even a single spill has the potential to
harm land and marine ecosystems for good," said Karthik Ganapathy, communications manager
for 350.org, an environmental group that has helped organize protests against oil by rail. "These
new data confirm what we've known to be true all along—oil-by-rail is incredibly dangerous."
First published January 26th 2015, 8:48 am
Tony Dokoupil is a senior writer for NBC News and the host of "Greenhouse," a new MSNBC
show about the... Expand Bio
January 9, 2015 - Lac-Mégantic train victims reach $200M
settlement
Victims of the Lac-Mégantic train derailment are expected to receive compensations for lost
lives, injuries and damages as soon as this summer.
By: Nicholas Keung Immigration reporter, Published on Fri Jan 09 2015
183
Victims of the Lac-Mégantic train disaster have reached a $200-million settlement with some of
the parties involved in the 2013 derailment that claimed 47 lives.
On Friday, lawyers for the claimants filed a draft compensation plan with the Quebec Superior
Court. The deal also requires the approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in May and payments
are expected to be distributed to the victims as soon as this summer.
“This is a good first step towards bringing some justice to our clients for what happened, but it’s
a first step,” said Peter Flowers, a Chicago-based lawyer representing the families of some of the
deceased victims.
The settlement involves the Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada Co. (MMAC), its insurance
carrier, rail-car manufacturers and some oil producers.
“The three defendants — World Fuel Services, Canadian Pacific Railway and Irving Oil — who
are not contributing anything to this settlement need to be held responsible. We intend to
continue to pursue them in courts.”
Downtown Lac-Mégantic, a small town in Quebec’s Eastern Townships, was decimated in the
ensuing blaze and explosions caused by the derailment of an unattended oil tanker train on July
6, 2013. The tragedy has resulted in calls for improved safety in fuel transportation by rail across
Canada.
MMAC train engineer Tom Harding, railway traffic controller Richard Labrie and Jean
Demaitre, the manager of train operations have each been charged with 47 counts of criminal
negligence causing death.
The settlement funds will be split among those who lost their lives, suffered injuries, property
and financial damages, as well as insurers affected by the disaster and the governments. Details
of the compensation package have yet to be hammered out among the claimants.
The litigation initiated in the Chicago court allowed the victims to bargain for a much higher
compensation than if the same lawsuit were to be filed in Canada because of the monetary caps
placed under Canadian laws, said Flowers.
The payouts in the Canadian court would have just reached about half of the amount reached in
the U.S. settlement deal, he added.
“In Chicago, there is no such cap. We strongly believe that that fear from these corporations that
they were going to face justice in the United States actually drove these numbers to be much
higher,” said Flowers, who worked on the case along with Texas lawyers Jason Webster and
Mitchell Toups.
“On behalf of our clients, we are hopeful that this process can move along, so the grieving
process can continue. Hopefully, we can help people move on with their lives the best they can.”
January 28, 2015 - Lac-Mégantic disaster by the numbers:
184
Catalogue of a tragedy
54% of town's residents suffered from depression, PTSD after explosion: health report
CBC News Posted: Jan 28, 2015 9:36 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 28, 2015 3:08 PM ET
A report into the health effects of the Lac-Mégantic, Que., train derailment and explosion
indicates people living there are four times more likely to drink to excess following the disaster.

Deadly train disaster still haunts people of Lac-Mégantic

Musi-Café reopening in Lac-Mégantic a big boost to town’s recovery

Lac-Mégantic coroner says 47 deaths were 'violent, avoidable'
Two-thirds of the 800 people studied suffered human loss, and over half experienced negative
feelings such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Marie-Claude Arguin, the town's deputy manager, said children are among those still showing
signs of PTSD, including trouble sleeping and hyper-vigilance.
"Essentially, children have taken care of their parents in the last year," she said.
"They don't have all the fears and worries that adults have ... But they've seen the images, they’ve
seen friends losing their parents, they're living it."
Lac-Mégantic Mayor Colette Roy Laroche says the town's residents will need long-term support
to cope with life after the tragedy. (CBC)
She said the community needs a firm commitment that help will continue, and hopes part of the
assistance will be devoted to further studies on the population.
In July 2013, a freight train carrying 72 cars of oil derailed and exploded in the centre of LacMégantic.
The explosion killed 47 people, and hundreds of thousands of litres of oil spilled into
the Chaudière River as a consequence of the derailment.
Lac-Mégantic Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche said Wednesday the recovery period will be extensive
for residents.
In the direct aftermath of the tragedy, resources were rushed in to meet the town’s immediate
needs and its citizens were well cared for, she said.
The fear, she said, is that those services may not be there in the longer term. She urged officials
to recognize ongoing mental-health support residents will require.
185
Human and material losses
Estrie public health director Dr. Mélissa Généreux, public health specialist
Dr. Geneviève Petit and Danielle Maltais, an expert on the health consequences of major
disasters, presented their findings on Wednesday morning in Sherbrooke, Que.
Généreux explained that following the tragedy, residents in the Granit MRC (regional county
municipality) experienced a greater sense of belonging and community than people living
elsewhere in the Eastern Townships.
Interviews with 800 residents of the Granit MRC found:

64 per cent had a human loss (fear for their lives or that of a loved one, was injured, etc.).

23 per cent had a material loss.

54 per cent had a negative perception (depression, post-traumatic stress, etc.).

17 per cent of people had an "intense exposure" (e.g. experienced all three of the above).
Généreux, Petit and Maltais commended the fact that medical and psychological resources were
quickly deployed to the area after the blast.
Still, it could take years for the mental-health issues stemming from the disaster to subside, said
Maltais, a researcher and professor at the University of Chicoutimi.
The public health officials convened in Sherbrooke said the tragedy will have lasting effects on
the community for years, particularly because it was due to human negligence.
Arguin said more research is needed to ensure the younger generation is also taken care of,
adding it's hard to know how to handle this type of trauma because there's no precedent.
"It hasn't even involved children and teenagers, which is the future of our community," Arguin
said. "And they have been affected just as much."
In October, a coroner ruled that the deaths in Lac-Mégantic were violent and avoidable.
Three people have each been charged with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death.
Other numbers from the Lac-Mégantic public health report:

27 children were orphaned (either lost one or both parents).

621 people sought help from the centre set up for homeless and people affected by
explosion.

44 buildings were destroyed.

169 people became homeless.
186

150 psycho-social counsellors deployed to region in wake of explosion.

57,000 square metres of Lac-Mégantic downtown completely burned.

5,560,000 litres of crude oil released into the environment.

558,000 metric tonnes of contaminated soil to treat.

740,000 litres of crude oil recovered from train cars that did not explode.
187
February 2, 2015 - The Oil Train Danger
Why Workers Need to Control Job Safety
Statement by Frank Forrestal,
Socialist Workers Party candidate for Governor of MinnesotaS
Working people in the US are faced with a developing catastrophe. Last year’s deadly oil train
disaster that devastated Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, was followed by similar explosions in Casselton,
North Dakota; Lynchburg, Virginia; and elsewhere. Working farmers are losing hundreds of
millions of dollars as their crops lie in storage and the railroads divert trains to service the needs
of the oil companies. The oil and rail barons brush aside all considerations of human safety and
human need in their thirst for profit as they cash in on the oil boom and react to sharpening
capitalist competition.
Eight oil trains per day rumble through Minneapolis. Not a single unsafe quarter-inch shell tank
car, like the ones that exploded in Quebec, has been retired! The Democrats and Republicans, the
capitalist government and its regulatory agencies do nothing to prevent future disasters. Workers
must develop confidence in our own capacity to enforce safety, not in a government that
represents the interests of the propertied rulers.
The actions of railworkers show that workers can take on this task. The Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad, with the collaboration of some union officials, has been demanding to reduce
the crews on main-line freight trains to one engineer. But workers and their families have been
organizing protests against this scheme. A few weeks ago, union workers voted overwhelmingly
to reject this attack!
The capitalists’ disregard for safety underscore the need for working people to bring union power
to bear and wrest control of safety on the job. Only the working class puts the lives of workers
and those who live near rail lines ahead of profits. Only fighting unions strong enough to bring
trains to a halt can put working-class priorities and morals into practice.
Immediate measures workers and our unions should demand include: reduce train length to 50
cars, reinstitute the eight-hour day with adequate rest, return the caboose to the rear of every train
and double the crew size to four — two on the engine and two in the rear.
With a fighting union movement, rail workers could press for control over safety conditions and
force rail bosses to open their books for public inspection to reveal how they operate and collude
with government agencies against us. Workers can take the moral high ground as the only true
defenders of industrial safety and fight for workers control under union power to enforce it. Such
a course would win solidarity from working farmers and strengthen our unions as instruments of
class combat that champion the interests of all working people.
188
What Railway Workers Think about Oil Trains
If you’re following the debate about the development of large-scale crude oil-by-rail sites in
Washington, you should be paying close attention to what labor unions are saying.
Sightline has cataloged a range of serious concerns about the rise of oil trains— from lax tank car
safety standards to industry intransigence to severe under-insurance—but the perspective of
actual rail workers is even more troubling. In response to a recently published Washington
Department of Ecology study on rail oil transport, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Trainmen submitted formal comments to the State that are frankly damning.The remarks
illustrate an industry prioritizing profits and efficiency over health and safety and, by doing so,
jeopardizing the very workers we rely on to move 15,000-ton trains of hazardous goods through
our communities safely.
Ecology will not be making the comments publicly available until March 2015, but with
permission from the union I’m publishing portions of them here. What follows are direct excerpts
from Chairman Sharaim C. Allen’s letter to the Department of Ecology:
There is an imminent risk to public health and safety by the number of inexperienced, “new hire”
railroad employees entering the railroad workforce inadequately trained and/or familiarized with
the workplace environment.
There is an imminent risk to public health and safety by the proposed use of Single-Person Train
Crews in freight rail operations.
Transport Canada took steps to bridle the North American rail industry’s “profits first” approach
to safety by requiring all trains carrying hazardous materials in Canada to have a minimum TwoPerson Crew. The Canadian government has also put a strict timeline of three years on the
phasing out of the aging DOT-111 tank cars. For a country that is supposed to be setting the
example for the rest of the world, so far, the USA still has not taken the sensible safety steps our
neighbors to the north now require of railroads operating in their country.
Over the past three years, Washington State has seen a dramatic increase in heavy train traffic,
associated with energy trains. Unit coal and Bakken crude oil trains, many in excess of 100 cars
and 15,000 tons, have increased exponentially. These heavy tonnage trains accelerate wear and
tear on the mainline infrastructure… Crude oil trains pose an additional maintenance challenge
due to the fact the product is transported in liquid state. Sloshing associated with rail
transportation of product can create “asymmetrical forces” to the track structure and road bed
beyond what is experienced by other non-liquid commodities.
Washington State’s railroad territory is unique, and the Class I service model seems to ignore this
important point. Case in point, during the Spring of 2008, a BLET Locomotive Engineer reported
for work on his Seattle Subdivision job to find a “monster” Distributed Power train of over
10,000 feet! When this engineer advised management that the train was too long for the territory,
they asked him, “Are you refusing service?” He replied that he was not but only advising them of
189
his safety concerns regarding the extreme length of the train for the territory to be traversed. That
safety experiment in train length went on to derail three times between Seattle and Vancouver,
WA.
There is an imminent risk to public health and safety by inadequate regulatory oversight and
cumbersome rulemaking by the Federal Railroad Administration.
The railroad Track Inspectors, who inspect the rail lines, have had their territories expanded…. It
is nearly impossible to adequately inspect all track placed in their responsibility, as needed to
ensure safety. These crucial inspections by railroad personnel are happening less frequently thus
increasing the potential for mishaps associated with failed infrastructure to occur.
The railroad has received federal High Speed Rail monies in the amount of $800 Million for the
upgrade in the existing infrastructure associated with improving passenger rail performance…
rest assured, the railroad benefited handsomely by this huge infusion of taxpayer funds. This
substantial financial benefit to the privately owned railroad corporations should require more
return to the public than what amounts to a few minutes improvement to passenger train on-time
performance.
There is an imminent risk to public health and safety due to the lack of accountability in all area
of operations management within the railroads.
The employees that encounter the bulk of the workplace risk, and who have firsthand knowledge
of what factors influence workplace risk, oftentimes are ignored or, even worse, intimidated to
remain silent.
There is an imminent risk to public health and safety by crew fatigue caused by inaccurate train
line-ups, and poor or improper crew lodging conditions.
There is an imminent risk to public health and safety due to inadequate Whistleblower
protections afforded railroad employees.
…the railroads have their own private police department with sworn officers having, in some
cases, more authority than city, county, and state police. In recent years, the railroads have taken
to using their railroad police to intimidate the workforce and/or meddle in labor/management
disputes.
Feb 16, 2015 - West Virginia Train Derailment Sends Oil Tanker
Into River
MOUNT CARBON, W.Va. — Feb 16, 2015, 5:54 PM ET By JOHN RABY Associated Press
A train carrying more than 100 tankers of crude oil derailed in southern West Virginia on
190
Monday, sending at least one into the Kanawha River, igniting at least 14 tankers and sparking a
house fire, officials said.
There were no immediate reports of injuries. Nearby residents were told to evacuate as a state
emergency response and environmental officials headed to the scene about 30 miles southeast of
Charleston.
The state was under a winter storm warning and getting heavy snowfall at times, with as much as
5 inches in some places. It's not clear if the weather had anything to do with the derailment,
which occurred about 1:20 EST along a flat stretch of rail.
Public Safety spokesman Lawrence Messina said responders at the scene reported one tanker and
possibly another went into the river. Messina said local emergency responders were having
trouble getting to the house that caught fire.
James Bennett, 911 coordinator for Fayette County, said he knew of no injuries related to the
house fire or subsequent tanker fires. He said a couple hundred families were evacuated as a
precaution.
The rail company acknowledged the derailment on its Twitter page.
"A CSX train derailed in Mount Carbon, WV," the company tweeted. "We are working with first
responders on the scene to ensure the safety of the community."
The fire continued burning along a hillside Monday evening, and small fires could be seen on the
river.
David McClung said he felt the heat from one of the explosions at his home about a half mile up
the hill.
His brother in law was outside at the time of the derailment and heard a loud crack below along
the riverfront, then went inside to summon McClung, his wife and their son.
One of the explosions that followed sent a fireball at least 300 feet into the air, McClung said.
"We felt the heat, I can tell you that," McClung said. "It was a little scary. It was like an atomic
bomb went off."
The office of Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, which has issued a state of emergency, said the tanker cars
were loaded with Bakken crude from North Dakota and headed to Yorktown, Va.
Local emergency officials said all but two of the 109 cars being hauled were tanker cars.
West Virginia American Water spokeswoman Laura Jordan said the company shut down a water
treatment plant, located about 3 miles from the derailment, at about 2:30 p.m. The plant serves
about 2,000 customers.
State health officials said another water plant downstream in the town of Cedar Grove also closed
191
its intake. They asked customers from both water systems to conserve water.
The U.S. Transportation Department is weighing tougher safety regulations for rail shipments of
crude, which can ignite and result in huge fireballs.
Responding to a series of fiery train crashes, including one this spring in Lynchburg, Va., the
government proposed rules in July that would phase out tens of thousands of older tank cars that
carry increasing quantities of crude oil and other highly flammable liquids. It's not clear how old
the tankers were on the derailed train.
February 17 2015 Train That Derailed in West Virginia Had
Modern Tanker Cars Hailed as Safe
Incident near Mount Carbon ratchets up debate over rule changes that could call for expanded
safeguards for crude-oil trains
By RUSSELL GOLD and KRIS MAHER
Updated Feb. 17, 2015 4:52 p.m. ET
The crude-oil train that derailed and exploded in West Virginia on Monday consisted of modern
tanker cars the rail industry has hailed as safe, ratcheting up the debate over proposed federal
rules that could require even stronger safeguards.
The derailment near Mount Carbon, a small community outside the state capital of Charleston,
launched fireballs into the sky, leaked crude into a creek and fueled fires that were still burning
Tuesday.
One person was treated for possible respiratory problems and released, according to CSX Corp. ,
which operated the train, and one home burned to the ground. Several hundred people were
evacuated and many were unable to return to their homes Tuesday. State officials initially said at
least one tanker car had fallen into the Kanawha River, but Tuesday they said that no longer
appeared to be the case.
The amount of crude oil moving on the nation’s railroads has skyrocketed in recent years. In
2009, U.S. railroads transported about 21,000 barrels of oil a day. Today they carry more than 50
times that amount, according to federal data, as fracking-fueled oil production in North Dakota
outpaced pipeline capacity and trains became the easiest way to get crude to refineries.
At the same time, a spate of crude-oil explosions has frightened people who live along tracks and
caught the attention of regulators. In the most serious incident, a train derailed in Lac-Mégantic,
Quebec, killing 47 people.
Federal regulators last year proposed rule changes to make crude-oil transport by rail safer. The
White House is considering the changes, according to a Federal Railroad Administration
192
spokesman, and is expected to issue final rules in coming months.
One proposed version of the rules required using the same CPC-1232 tanker cars that exploded
in West Virginia. Another version would require a stronger tank car. Tank-car manufacturers
support requiring thicker shells and other protections, but the oil industry worries that
implementing changes too quickly could slow the U.S. energy boom.
“We think we can reduce the magnitude of these incidents, in part with a safer tank car,” said
Jack Isselmann, a senior vice president of Greenbrier Cos., an Oregon-based tanker-car maker.
But he said orders were slow because leasing companies were waiting for the final federal rule,
expected to set standards for new tank cars as well as a timetable for retrofits.
The train that derailed was traveling from North Dakota to Yorktown, Va., a CSX spokesman
said.
Most of the oil carried by rail originates in North Dakota, but the exact routes aren’t disclosed.
Rail companies including CSX have filed lawsuits to prevent states from publicizing them.
However, a Wall Street Journal analysis of state data created a detailed picture of how crude oil
moves through this new virtual pipeline. The train that derailed came through Chicago, then
headed south through Ohio and into West Virginia. It was scheduled to cross Virginia and deliver
about 70,000 barrels of crude to a terminal in Yorktown. In April, a CSX train on the same route
derailed in Lynchburg, Va.
Monday’s derailment and explosions terrified local residents. Morris Bounds Jr., a 44-year-old
general contractor, said he was sitting in his living room in Mount Carbon when he heard a series
of booms that shook the ground like an earthquake.
His father, who lives 400 yards away, called and frantically told him a train had derailed next to
his house.
Mr. Bounds hopped in his pickup truck and sped toward his father’s home. Before he got there,
he saw his father running barefoot through the snow. Behind him, flames were leaping from
spilled-over tanker cars, and his father’s home was already burning.
“It was like a horror movie trying to get to him,” Mr. Bounds said. “I had seen cars piled up and
flames shooting through them. He was just running for his life.”
Mr. Bounds said he was relieved his mother wasn’t in the house. She is recovering from heart
surgery and was readmitted to the hospital with the flu, Mr. Bounds said, adding that he believed
had she been in the house, she would have died. He said she was glad to be alive but upset at
having lost all her possessions.
Within a minute or so of driving away, the two men saw the tankers begin to explode, sending
shock waves through the air and huge balls of flames that rose against the mountains.
193
“Everything they owned was there,” he said of his parents’ home. But, he added: “I got him out
of there safely.”
February 17, 2015 - Derailments highlights crude oil train, water
safety issues
http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150217/GZ01/150219372/1419
Tuesday, February 17, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr., Staff writer
Early in the morning on July 6, 2013, a 72-car runaway train carrying crude oil from North
Dakota to New Brunswick, Canada, crashed in the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic. The resulting
fire and explosion left 47 people dead and half of the downtown’s buildings destroyed.
It could have happened here, as this week’s derailment showed.
Early Monday afternoon, a CSX train with 107 cars of highly volatile Bakken crude oil from
North Dakota left the tracks not far from the Fayette-Kanawha County border.
Many details remain sketchy about the crash and its immediate aftermath, in which flames shot
high into the sky and black smoke billowed over the area, creating a frightening scene for a
community already hit by a daytime snowstorm and continued frigid temperatures.
Twenty-six of those 30,000-gallon tanker cars derailed and nearly 20 of those caught fire. At least
one home was destroyed. More than 2,400 nearby residents were initially evacuated. Drinking
water intake pumps that serve the nearby community of Montgomery were closed out of concern
that oil had contaminated the Kanawha River. Remarkably, no one was killed and the only injury
appeared to be one person treated for respiratory problems.
The near-disaster brought immediate repeats of long-standing calls for action amid the nation’s
growing reliance on oil from the Bakken and the recent dramatic increases in the amount of it
being shipped by rail.
“This accident, and the pattern of regularly occurring horrifying accidents we’ve seen over the
last two years, shows that you cannot safely transport this crude oil by rail,” said Kristen Boyles,
a staff attorney with the group Earthjustice. “The federal regulators are missing in action and are
exposing millions of Americans to exploding death trains.”
Earthjustice is among the groups have been pushing the U.S. Department of Transportation for
stronger regulation that would take effect sooner to ban older cars that many experts consider
unsafe for carrying crude oil because they are prone to rupture during derailments.
Over the last three years, railway shipments of crude oil in the U.S. have skyrocketed, from fewer
than 75,000 cars in 2011 to more than 400,000 in 2013, according to industry figures.
The National Transportation Safety Board has also called for tougher standards, warning of
194
“major loss of life, property damage and environmental consequences” that can occur when
crude oil or other flammable liquids are carried in significant volumes as a larger train’s only
cargo.
“The large-scale shipment of crude oil by rail simply didn’t exist 10 years ago, and our safety
regulations need to catch up with this new reality,” then-NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman
said last year. “While this energy boom is good for business, the people and the environment
along rail corridors must be protected from harm.”
CSX officials said that they are still trying to sort out exactly what happened on Monday
afternoon, and that the results of investigations would provide valuable information to prevent
future incidents.
“We try to run a safe railroad,” company spokesman Gary Sease said Tuesday morning on the
West Virginia MetroNews “Talkline” radio show. “Obviously, something has gone wrong there in
West Virginia.”
Sease confirmed Tuesday that the train that derailed in West Virginia was using a newer model of
tanker called the CPC-1232, named for an information circular and designed to meet a voluntary
industry standard.
Fred Millar, a Washington, D.C.-based hazardous materials safety advocate, said that the CPC1232 is only “marginally better” than the older tanks, known as “111s.” Though those tanks are
no longer made, thousands of them are still in use, and a major issue for critics is that
government regulators haven’t moved quickly enough to outlaw them.
“The rail infrastructure is really not ready for ... new massive transcontinental shipment of 100car unit trains at high speeds through our cities and along our rivers,” Millar said.
In West Virginia, citizen groups were quick to note that the crude-oil derailment — just upstream
from two public water intakes — occurred just hours after lawmakers held a public hearing at
which environmentalists warned of efforts to gut new chemical storage tank and drinking water
protections passed after last January’s Freedom Industries chemical leak on the Elk River.
Evan Hansen, a consultant with the firm Downstream Strategies, noted that a new state
commission studying such issues recommended in December that public drinking water systems
be given more information about potential contamination threats from “transportation of
contaminants by road, rail and water.”
“This is a vivid example of the threats to our drinking water and the need for planning to
minimize the risk of contamination,” Hansen said. “I hope the Legislature pulls back on efforts to
gut key portions of Senate Bill 373 and instead thinks about how to strengthen it.”
Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said, “It is wickedly
ironic that just hours before the train derailment, citizens were speaking up at a legislative public
hearing for the Category A protection of the Kanawha River as a drinking water supply. Then
195
catastrophe hits the Kanawha, and the Montgomery water system shut down. If this isn’t enough
of a message that better protection of our water supplies and adequate backup systems are
necessary, I don’t know what is.”
February 20, 2015 - Company Whose Train Exploded Had Spent
Millions on Lobbying, Campaign Contributions
Fri, 02/20/2015 - 9:34am Andy Szal, Chem.Info
The railroad company whose train triggered a massive explosion Monday in West Virginia had
spent millions lobbying against rail oversight legislation in Congress, according to a report.
Numbers from the Washington, D.C. research group Center for Responsive Politics indicated
Florida-based CSX Corp. had spent more than $56 million lobbying members of Congress since
1998, with its largest lobbying expenditures coinciding with debate over legislation to fund the
Surface Transportation Board in 2009.
The legislation would have moved the board — which has oversight of railroads’ economic
activity — out of the federal Department of Transportation, and would have enacted reporting
requirements for the nation’s largest railroad companies.
The legislation did not move forward despite its introduction by members of both parties; CSX
reportedly spent more than $5 million on lobbying purposes that year.
The Center for Responsive Politics said CSX has “lobbied heavily to protect its interests,” most
notably against bills to “strengthen railroad antitrust laws” and to “give the federal government
more power of oversight and regulation.” Then-Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, was one
of the co-sponsors of the Surface Transportation Board bill and had received contributions from
CSX. The rail company’s contributions to the longtime senator, however, were relatively small
compared to other West Virginia lawmakers, according to a report in the Charleston Gazette.
On Monday, a CSX train transporting more than 100 cars of crude oil from North Dakota’s
drilling operations to the Atlantic Coast derailed in a snowstorm, exploding into a massive
fireball and forcing hundreds of nearby evacuations.
The company responded after the explosion that it “remains committed to maintaining safe
operations and working closely with federal, state and local organizations to return citizens to
their homes as soon as safely possible.”
West Virginia’s two senators, meanwhile, dismissed concerns about the CSX contributions.
Republican Shelley Moore Capito’s office said she would, as always, put “put West Virginians’
interests first,” while Democrat Joe Manchin’s office responded that the senator “has never
allowed political donations to influence his decision making”
196
The explosion, meanwhile, continues to stir up debates on how the nation’s burgeoning oil and
natural gas output should be shipped.
Febuary 22, 2015 - DOT predicts fuel-hauling trains will derail 10
times a year; cost $4 billion; 100's killed
Repost from Associated Press News
AP Exclusive: Fuel-hauling trains could derail at 10 a year
By Matthew Brown and Josh Funk, Feb. 22, 2015 12:00 PM ET
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) – The federal government predicts that trains hauling crude oil or
ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4
billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely
populated part of the U.S.
The projection comes from a previously unreported analysis by the Department of Transportation
that reviewed the risks of moving vast quantities of both fuels across the nation and through
major cities. The study completed last July took on new relevance this week after a train loaded
with crude derailed in West Virginia, sparked a spectacular fire and forced the evacuation of
hundreds of families.
Monday’s accident was the latest in a spate of fiery derailments, and senior federal officials said
it drives home the need for stronger tank cars, more effective braking systems and other safety
improvements.
“This underscores why we need to move as quickly as possible getting these regulations in
place,” said Tim Butters, acting administrator for the Transportation Department’s Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The volume of flammable liquids transported by rail has risen dramatically over the last decade,
driven mostly by the oil shale boom in North Dakota and Montana. This year, rails are expected
to move nearly 900,000 car loads of oil and ethanol in tankers. Each can hold 30,000 gallons of
fuel.
Based on past accident trends, anticipated shipping volumes and known ethanol and crude rail
routes, the analysis predicted about 15 derailments in 2015, declining to about five a year by
2034.
The 207 total derailments over the two-decade period would cause $4.5 billion in damage,
according to the analysis, which predicts 10 “higher consequence events” causing more extensive
damage and potential fatalities.
197
If just one of those more severe accidents occurred in a high-population area, it could kill more
than 200 people and cause roughly $6 billion in damage.
“Such an event is unlikely, but such damages could occur when a substantial number of people
are harmed or a particularly vulnerable environmental area is affected,” the analysis concluded.
The two fuels travel through communities with an average population density of 283 people per
square kilometer, according to the federal analysis. That means about 16 million Americans live
within a half-kilometer of one of the lines.
Such proximity is equivalent to the zone of destruction left by a July 2013 oil train explosion that
killed 47 people and leveled much of downtown Lac-Megantic, Quebec, the analysis said.
Damage at Lac-Megantic has been estimated at $1.2 billion or higher.
A spokesman for the Association of American Railroads said the group was aware of the
Department of Transportation analysis but had no comment on its derailment projections.
“Our focus is to continue looking at ways to enhance the safe movement of rail transportation,”
AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg said.
Both the railroad group and the Railway Supply Institute, which represents tank car owners and
manufacturers, said federal officials had inflated damage estimates and exaggerated risk by
assuming an accident even worse than Lac-Megantic, which was already an outlier because it
involved a runaway train traveling 65 mph, far faster than others that had accidents.
To get to refineries on the East and West coasts and the Gulf of Mexico, oil shipments travel
through more than 400 counties, including major metropolitan areas such as Philadelphia,
Seattle, Chicago, Newark and dozens of other cities, according to routing information obtained
by The Associated Press through public record requests filed with more than two dozen states.
Since 2006, the U.S. and Canada have seen at least 21 oil-train accidents and 33 ethanol train
accidents involving a fire, derailment or significant amount of fuel spilled, according to federal
accident records reviewed by the AP.
At least nine of the trains, including the CSX train that derailed in West Virginia, were hauling oil
from the Northern Plains’ Bakken region that is known for being highly volatile. Of those, seven
resulted in fires.
Both the West Virginia accident and a Jan. 14 oil train derailment and fire in Ontario involved
recently built tank cars that were supposed to be an improvement to a decades-old model in wide
use that has proven susceptible to spills, fires and explosions.
Safety officials are pushing to make the tanker-car fleet even stronger and confronting opposition
from energy companies and other tank car owners.
198
Industry representatives say it could take a decade to retrofit and modify more than 50,000 tank
cars, not the three years anticipated by federal officials, who assumed many cars would be put to
new use hauling less-volatile Canadian tar-sands oil.
The rail industry’s overall safety record steadily improved over the past decade, dropping from
more than 3,000 accidents annually to fewer than 2,000 in 2013, the most recent year available,
according to the Federal Railroad Administration.
But the historical record masks a spike in crude and ethanol accidents over the same time frame.
Federal officials also say the sheer volume of ethanol and crude that is being transported – often
in trains more than a mile long – sets the two fuels apart.
Most of the proposed rules that regulators are expected to release this spring are designed to
prevent a spill, rupture or other failure during a derailment. But they will not affect the likelihood
of a crash, said Allan Zarembski, who leads the railroad engineering and safety program at the
University of Delaware.
Derailments can happen in many ways. A rail can break underneath a train. An axle can fail. A
vehicle can block a crossing. Having a better tank car will not change that, but it should reduce
the odds of a tank car leaking or rupturing, he said.
Railroads last year voluntarily agreed to reduce oil train speeds to 40 mph in urban areas.
Regulators said they are considering lowering the speed limit to 30 mph for trains not equipped
with advanced braking systems. Oil and rail industries say it could cost $21 billion to develop
and install the brakes, with minimal benefits.
February 15, 2015 - CN wreck near Gogama has 29 cars derailed
Sunday, February 15, 2015 6:27:01 EST PM
By LEN GILLIS
The Timmins Times
UPDATE from earlier report on www.timmins.com
An eastbound 100-car CN freight train hauling crude oil, derailed on the CN mainline north of
Gogama. The derailment occurred around midnight Saturday and sparked a fire among some the
cars.
A CN Rail spokesman said there were no injuries reported. The CN mainline is blocked and there
is no indication at this time how long it will take to clear the line, but the crash is along a remote
stretch of track between the tiny communities of Gogama and Foleyet, just southwest of
Timmins. One railway worker near the scene predicted the clean-up "will take a few days."
CN spokesman Patrick Waldron said CN senior operating officers arrived at the scene early
199
Sunday to assess the damage. Twenty-nine of the 100 cars were involved in the derailment, he
said. Seven of those cars were burning, at last report, at midday Sunday. The story was first
reported by The Timmins Times early Sunday.
Some of the cars are broken and scattered along the side of the tracks where the snow is chest
deep. All day Sunday, heavy trucks, excavators and bulldozers have been moving toward the
scene. In some cases equipment is being shipped by rail. In other instances, heavy equipment
operators have been moving slowly along a frozen logging road, running off from Highway 144.
Waldron said the remaining 71 rail cars were safely pulled back from the derailment scene.
"CN has initiated its emergency response plan and has crews responding to the site. That includes
firefighting and environmental crews and equipment,” said Waldron. The Transportation Safety
Board dispatched a team to the site late Sunday morning.
"CN is working in close contact with all relevant provincial and emergency response authorities,
including environment and the Transportation Safety Board," said Waldron.
He said at this point, there is not enough information to pinpoint the cause of the wreck.
"The cause of derailment remains the focus of a full investigation, but the train was visually
inspected four times and passed over a wayside safety detector approximately 20 miles before the
derailment with no issues identified," Waldron said Sunday afternoon.
"The track was last inspected visually Saturday morning, and with rail flaw detector and
geometry test car within the last week. "
This part of Northern Ontario has endured extremely cold weather the past week, with
temperatures regularly in the minus-40 range. The temperature at midnight Saturday was minus34 with a windchill effect of minus-45.
The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada says the new CPC-1232 tank cars are no better
than the older DOT-111 tank cars that derailed, punctured, spilled 6.5 million litres of crude oil,
and burned in July 2013, killing 47 people, seriously damaging the environment and leveling
much of downtown Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
In a preliminary report on the February 14, 2015 derailment of a Canadian National Railway oil
train near Timmins in northern Ontario, the TSB says at least 19 of the 29 derailed tank cars were
breached or partially breached, releasing crude oil which was being shipped from Alberta’s tar
sands region (Reuters). Seven of the derailed tank cars caught fire and burned for about 4
days. “Preliminary assessment of the CPC-1232-compliant tank cars involved in this occurrence
demonstrates the inadequacy of this standard given the tank cars’ similar performance to the
legacy Class 111 tank cars involved in the Lac-Mégantic accident”, said the Board.
The February 16, 2015 derailment of a CSX oil train in West Virginia also involved the newer
model CPC-1232-compliant tank cars. About 15 of 27 tank cars that derailed in that crash caught
200
fire and spilled Bakken crude oil into Armstrong Creek and the Kanawha River.
Considering this latest revelation by the TSB, one has to wonder whether it is actually possible to
make shipping oil by rail safe. Visit this link for more information on the dangers associated with
shipping oil and other dangerous goods by rail.
February 25, 2015 - Derailment fallout: Virginia penalizes CSX for
oil spill; RESPONSE Act re-enters Congress
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on Monday issued a consent order
imposing a $361,000 civil penalty against CSX Transportation in response to a derailment and
resulting oil spill that occurred last year in Lynchburg.
A tank car owned by CSX caught fire in the James River during the April 2014 incident. An
investigation by DEQ and CSX determined that of the more than 29,000 gallons of crude oil in
the breached tank car, about 98 percent was consumed in the fire.
DEQ officials checked the river's water quality for several days and determined there were no
other environmental concerns. The consent order is based on state law that prohibits the release
of oil onto land or in water.
CSX agreed to pay more than $18,500 for the DEQ’s investigative costs following the oil spill. In
addition, the railroad will complete restoration of the river's bank in the area of the derailment
and monitor the river to determine if there are any long-term environmental impacts from the
incident.
The public can submit comments on the consent order until March 25, when it goes to the State
Water Control Board for final approval.
The railroad appreciates its productive working relationship with the DEQ and agreed to the
proposed consent order and civil charge, subject to the water control board's final review, said
CSX spokesperson Melanie Cost in an email.
"CSX continues its work to ensure that the derailment at Lynchburg has no lasting effects on the
environment or the community," she said.
Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) yesterday reintroduced the Railroad Emergency
Services Preparedness, Operational Needs and Safety Evaluation (RESPONSE) Act (S. 546),
which aims to improve emergency preparedness and training for first responders, and provide
necessary support to help emergency personnel better respond to crude train derailments and
other incidents involving hazardous materials. Identical legislation (H.R. 1043) was introduced in
the House by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.).
201
In the wake of last week’s CSX crude train derailment near Mount Carbon, W.Va., and other
similar accidents in recent years – including a BNSF Railway Co. derailment near Casselton,
N.D., in December 2013 – Heitkamp has been pursuing legislation to prioritize support for first
responders and make sure they have the necessary tools and skills when responding to haz-mat
incidents on rails, she said in a press release.
The RESPONSE Act would create a Federal Emergency Management Agency public-private
council that would bring together emergency responders, federal agencies and leading experts to
review training and best practices for first responders. The council would provide
recommendations to Congress on how to address first responders’ needs.
"We have to make sure first responders in our communities are prepared to handle any potential
incidents, like derailments, that may occur to help keep families safe," said Heitkamp. "If
dangerous situations like that derailment and subsequent explosion near Casselton, or the recent
incident in West Virginia occur, our first responders need to have the training and skills to control
the situation and respond as effectively as possible."
February 17, 2015 - After Oil Train Derailment, Will West Virginia
Finally Protect Its Water Supply?
by Katie Valentine Posted on February 17, 2015 at 4:55 pm
West Virginia is reeling from an oil train derailment that destroyed a house, forced the evacuation
of about 2,400 people and spilled oil into the state’s Kanawha River.
Experts say that the official response to the spill makes it clear that the state has learned from its
past experiences with water contamination — namely the chemical spill that shut off water for
300,000 people in the state last year. But questions still remain as to whether or not the water
protection reforms enacted in the wake of the historic chemical spill will withstand recent efforts
to weaken them, and whether state lawmakers will take further steps to protect the water supply
after the derailment.
Evan Hansen, president of West Virginia think tank Downstream Strategies, told ThinkProgress
that officials took a “cautious approach” in responding to Monday’s derailment in order to
prevent oil from contaminating the drinking water of West Virginia residents near the derailment,
which occurred near the town of Boomer. Officials closed the water intakes for Montgomery and
Cedar Grove, WV, after the derailment.
“It would appear that they’ve learned from Freedom Industries spill,” Hansen said. Officials
didn’t turn off water intakes in the aftermath of that spill, which meant that the chemical — crude
MCHM — entered the tap water supply of thousands of West Virginians.
202
Andrew Whelton, assistant professor of environmental and ecological engineering, agreed. He
said that, because of last year’s chemical spill, West Virginia’s state government is far better
prepared now to deal with water contamination events like this — though he said an event like
this, that impacted a few thousand people, is easier to deal with than an event like the chemical
spill, that impacted 300,000.
The derailment hasn’t caused a major inconvenience so far to Melissa Ellsworth, who lives just
outside Montgomery, West Virginia. Ellsworth said she hasn’t had tap water since she woke up
on Tuesday morning, though West Virginia American Water reopened the intake at the
Montgomery water plant around 1 p.m. on Tuesday, so she’s waiting for her water to come back
on. She said she was able to buy water last night, after she was warned her water would be turned
off, and said there were also distribution stations set up where she could go to get free water. She
said she also thought the response this year was better than the response to last year’s chemical
spill.
Still, for Ellsworth — and many others in West Virginia — the news of the derailment was
disturbing. Ellsworth said she could smell the smoke from the burning oil tankers — which fire
crews are letting burn themselves out — from her home, five miles away from the derailment
site. And she said she was grateful no one had been injured or killed in the derailment.
“These trains go through very densely populated areas all throughout Southwest West Virginia,”
she said. “The fact that only one house was destroyed was remarkable. This certainly is a
frightening wake-up call.”
Hearing that no one was killed was also a relief to Angie Rosser, executive director of the West
Virginia Rivers Coalition. Now, Rosser is concerned about the other impacts of the derailment:
mainly, how much oil was spilled — a figure that hasn’t yet been released — and how it might
impact the Kanawha River. She’s also worried about how the state will respond to the derailment
— whether it will prioritize measures that protect water sources against contamination, or
whether it will ignore the event altogether.
“We’re getting tired of this. This is in about a year our third drinking water contamination event
in the state,” she said, referencing the chemical spill in Charleston last year and a diesel spill that
shut off water in Lewisburg last month.
So far, however, West Virginia’s state legislature hasn’t shown that it wants to make water
protection a priority. Earlier this month, state lawmakers introduced a bill in the House and
Senate that would drastically scale back regulations on aboveground storage tanks that were put
into place following last year’s chemical spill. According to Hansen’s Downstream Strategies,
under the bill, the number of tanks subject to regulation would fall from about 50,000 to fewer
than 100. The bill also exempts all tanks related to the oil and gas industries. It is currently being
discussed in committee meetings.
203
Hansen said that the derailment was a reminder to West Virginians that chemical storage tanks
weren’t the only threat to their water — that trains, trucks, and barges also can create major
contamination events. He also said it points to the need for better protections for bodies of water
that are used as drinking sources, and to the need for water utilities to be made aware of what
sorts of materials are being carried by trains, and on what schedule they’re being carried, so they
can plan for emergencies like this one. Last year, West Virginia’s Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management declined to release information on what routes oil trains take and
how much oil is shipped through the state. That information is desperately needed by water
utilities, Hansen said.
“How can you make sure that you know what actions to take immediately after incident if you
don’t know what type of substances being transported?” he said. “I think at the very least, that
information needs to be shared with public water utilities trying to protect source water.”
February 17, 2015 - Train explosion, spill could bring crude oil to
Cincinnati water
Greater Cincinnati Water Works on alert
WCPO Staff
7:14 PM, Feb 17, 2015
11:21 PM, Feb 17, 2015
CINCINNATI – A crude oil spill in southern West Virginia Monday has Cincinnati officials on
alert.
Greater Cincinnati Water Works (GCWW) crews said they are carefully monitoring the Ohio
River and taking all necessary precautions to keep crude oil from reaching the city’s water
supply.
Crude oil spilled near the Kanawha River Monday after a train derailment in Fayette County,
Virginia. The Kanawha River feeds into the Ohio River. The spill area is about 285 miles
upstream of Cincinnati.
GCWW said it is working with other agencies to determine how much, if any, oil was released
into the river – and whether that oil could reach Cincinnati.
"At least preliminarily, it doesn't look like a whole lot got into the water which is a good thing.
But we're still going to keep on top of that and make sure that it isn't a danger to the water or the
region," Jeff Swertfeger, superintendent of Water Quality said.
If oil spilled into the Kanawha River, the spill would not be expected to reach the Cincinnati area
until mid to late next week, GCWW spokeswoman Cassandra Hillary said.
204
GCWW has the ability to detect oil and shut its water intakes if necessary, she said.
“The safety of our drinking water is the highest priority,” GCWW Executive Director James A.
Parrott said. “As always, our primary objective is to protect our water supply.”
A spill of carbon tetrachloride in 1980 prompted GCWW to begin work on building a granulated
activated carbon filtration system. The water cleaning method is recognized around the world as
one of the best.
The train that derailed was moving crude oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota to
Yorktown, Virginia. The crash caused a fiery explosion.
GCWW officials said they are working closely with the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO) and other organizations to track the spill and conduct source water
sampling to keep water safe.
ORSANCO uses 16 monitoring stations along the Ohio River to detect and warn treatment plants
downstream about spills so they can take precautionary measures before the spill reaches their
intakes, Parrott said.
Cincinnati isn’t a stranger to fuel spills. A Duke Energy power plant spilled thousands of gallons
of diesel fuel into the Ohio River in August of 2014.
The spill happened during a routine transfer at Duke Energy's W.C. Beckjord Station, about 20
miles upstream of Cincinnati.
"We were able to see how that contaminant got into the river and how that traveled down to the
Ohio River. We were then able to get out and do our emergency exercises," Swertfeger said.
Water Works faces a third intake closure in thirteen months next week.
"I think we really need to realize how precious our drinking water is and make sure that we're
doing the things that we can to protect the resources and protect the drinking waters, and make
sure contamination doesn't get into the surface water," Swertfeger said.
February, 26 2015 - The oil trains and the cities: How safe?
Thursday 26, February 2015
by Martha Baskin
They gathered at dusk at the King Street Station with the words “No Exploding Oil Trains”
projected on the station’s clock tower. Some held signs with four more words, “Not Under Our
City.” The crowd wasn’t certain if any 100-car oil trains would enter the tunnel beneath them on
the underground route past the Pike Place Market. But after two more oil train explosions this
month, one in Ontario and another in West Virginia, the people gathered there Tuesday felt the
205
time was ripe for another protest.
“How many oil trains do we want to see passing under downtown Seattle,” 350 Seattle.org
organizer, Carlo Voli, asked the crowd rhetorically. “None!” they shouted. How many do we want
to see passing alongside the stadiums, through our neighborhoods, and along the shores of Puget
Sound? The answer was always the same, “None!”
According to an Associated Press article published last weekend, a U.S. Department of
Transportation study predicts that over the next decade, there will be an average of 10
derailments a year of trains hauling crude oil or ethanol. “They tell us this will be the norm,” said
Seattle City Councilmember Mike O’Brien, addressing the crowd, “and we should just get used
to it. Are we going to get used to it? No!”
“We have an old tunnel here that wasn’t designed for trains carrying hazardous materials,”
O’Brien added.
The state Department of Ecology estimates there are currently 19 oil trains a week traveling
through the state with expectations that the number may rise to 59 a week by 2020. Protesters
fear that could result in a threefold increase in derailments. “These trains go right under Seattle,
right under the Pike Place Market,” said Emily Johnson, also with 350 Seattle.org, “despite the
fact that a year ago the National Transportation Safety Board ruled they shouldn’t travel through
populated or sensitive areas.”
In a blog post this week, Christopher Hart, acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety
Board, wrote that tank car standards under review at the White House “could be weakened by a
vast new fleet of cars built to older and less-safe standards.” He was referring to so-called CPC1232 tank cars, which have been involved in several oil train derailments and fires, including the
most recent in West Virginia. He said that, while proposed U.S. Department of Transportation
rules would make a significant improvement over the current designs, the plans would mean that
“another 36,000 will be built for crude oil service by the end of the year.” Barring “swift
regulatory action,” he suggested, the nation’s overall fleet of oil tank cars would remain
dangerous.
The Great Northern Tunnel that runs beneath downtown Seattle was built in 1905. The doubletracked tunnel carries both passenger trains and freight. Whether the tunnel is safe when one
track is loaded with 100 tank cars carrying an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil depends on
who you ask.
BNSF spokesperson Gus Melonas says the nation’s second largest rail freight carrier hasn’t had a
fatality in the region since 1981. That year ammonia was accidentally released by a conductor in
what Melonas refers to as “a danger zone” in Vancouver.
When he was reached for this story, Melonas was on his way to visit his hometown in the
Columbia Gorge. He said his father, who immigrated from Greece, helped build the railway in
that part of the state. “Safety is our No. 1 priority. We’ve been in this business for over 160
206
years.”
“These recent incidents,” said Melonas referring to oil train explosions, “didn’t happen on BNSF
property. But the industry as a whole learns from these accidents.”
BNSF broke a record last year after spending over 6 billion in capital investments, says Melonas.
Of that, $189 million is in track upgrades throughout the state, in particular mainline corridors
between Olympia and Centralia, Everett and Canada, and others.
People can protest against oil trains as much as they want, says Melonas, but if you look at
geographic factors involving the railroad, oil fields and markets, “we’re in a perfect position to
move this product that is being demanded by the public.
“People are complaining, yet they’re driving vehicles and demanding this product that we move
as a common carrier. We don’t control what we haul; we control how we haul it.”
Pressed on whether he thinks Seattle’s Great Northern Tunnel is safe, Melonas says the trains
slow down to 10 mph before entering the tunnel. BNSF has invested in fans that can be placed at
both ends of the tunnel for ventilation. They also invested in a trailer filled with chemical foam.
The foam is designed to “smother product” and was recently placed in the tunnel area.
The Seattle Fire Department has its own perspective on the safety of the tunnel and the city if an
oil derailment or explosion were to occur. “There’s no department in the world that could deal
with a scenario like Quebec or the most recent one in West Virginia,” says Assistant Fire Chief
A.D. Vickery.
In July 2013, the explosion of a 72-car train carrying Bakken crude in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec
killed 47. West Virginia brought no loss of life but the fire blast burned for over two days.
“We simply don’t have the economic resources to add additional firefighters, specialized
apparatus and a number of things that would be required to deal with a significant incident.” The
tunnel, says Vickery, “was designed with no life-safety systems because they weren’t hauling the
volumes of the type of cargo they are now.
He adds that he’s not convinced by the idea that just because something hasn’t
occurred, emergency officials can be confident it won’t be big problem in the future.
Vickery appreciates that BNSF supplied a trailer filled with chemical foam, a vapor suppressant
used for extinguishing flammable liquid fires. “But it requires continuous application and
wouldn’t be the initial thing you’d think about using. One trailer full of the foam isn’t sufficient
to put out an oil train fire. We’d need enough to continually apply it over a potential explosion,”
he explains.
The state House and Senate are both considering legislation that would notify first responders
when a train is coming down the tracks. “I don’t disagree with that,” Vickery said. “My question
207
is what am I going to do when it comes? Because there’s no state support to beef up hazardous
teams. All the money seems to be going to state inspectors to ensure that I have plans, for which
there’s no money to support.”
Back at the rally, Matt Krogh, director of Forest Ethics’ Extreme Oil Campaign, thanked the
crowd coming out and for helping ensure what he calls “the victory in Skagit County.” This
week, a Skagit County hearing examiner ruled that before Shell Oil could add a rail spur to its oil
refinery in Anacortes, it needed to conduct an environmental impact statement. As a result, said
Krogh, whose Forest Ethics was party to the Shell challenge, all cumulative impacts of oil traffic
will now be identified: not just in Skagit County, but in King and Snohomish counties, along the
Columbia River and in Spokane. Krogh told the crowd, “It’s a remarkable piece of science, of
regulatory work.”
One section of the ruling says, “The total impact of the entirety of the massive upsurge in
shipments of crude along this route has not been analyzed. The risks that adding one more
actor to this scene poses to the environment and to health and safety can only be appreciated after
a cumulative analysis of the entire picture.”
Shell is expected to appeal the decision. In the interim it’s likely the decision will be interpreted
and scrutinized by players across the board: the governor, the Legislature, BNSF, counties and
cities impacted by oil train traffic and, last but not least, the public.
2 Comments:
The BIG truth here is once Bakken crude oil begins to burn from a spill event it cannot be
extinguished. No obfuscation by BNSF or the shale oil extraction industry can make this
"product" not burn for days on end - and oil tank cars explode, because they are oil tank cars. The
only oil fire suppression that works on Bakken crude is for the fire to consume all of the
"product."
The BIG QUESTION here is why this Mayor and this City Council continue to allow these trains
to move through Seattle. This is in clear violation of the NTSB Ruling that these trains should
not travel through populated areas - like Downtown Seattle, adjacent to the sports stadiums,
below Seattle's financial district, over and under the bus/light rail tunnel, beneath Benaroya Hall,
so close beneath the Pike Place Market that these trains can be heard from adjacent building
basements, within twenty feet of waterfront residences and hotels, the thousands of waterfront
visitors on any given summer Sunday, homes and neighborhoods in Georgetown and Ballard.
Meanwhile this Mayor and this City Council politely "express their concern" to BNSF. Cowards
and cheap empty suits all! While Mr. O'Brien dose show up and does talks a good game, that is
all our elected officials do. These cowards simple must ban these trains from transiting through
Seattle.
We already know what happens when a tanker carrying petroleum wrecks in a tunnel: it
happened in the Caldecott Tunnel, in Oakland, CA, in 1983. Seven people died, and the tunnel
was out of service for months. That was 8700 gallons of gasoline. Each of the 100 cars in a
typical oil train carries 34,000 gallons, almost four times as much. Of course, our tunnel doesn't
208
go under a hill, it goes under a populated downtown area.
March 2, 2015 - Transporting Tar Sands “As Dangerous” As Shale
Oil
In the increasingly important and urgent debate about crude-by-rail safety in North
America, much of the attention has been on Bakken light oil and its alarming propensity to
explode.
But following a derailment and explosion in Ontario in February there is growing evidence that
transporting tar sands oil is as inherently dangerous as carrying the volatile Bakken shale oil.
While the explosion in West Virginia got more attention last month, just two days before a
derailment and fire in a remote corner of Ontario was perhaps more significant for what it
revealed about an emerging trend in Canadian crude-by-rail.
A Canadian National Railways train carrying diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the tar sands in
Alberta derailed in northern Ontario, with 29 of the 100 cars involved in the accident. Seven
caught fire, spilling some 6,000 barrels of oil. Such was the intensity of the fire that it burnt for
six days.
Last week, the rail trade magazine Railway Age published an investigation into the Ontario crash.
And what they found is deeply disturbing. They call the Ontario crash by far the “more disturbing
of the two mishaps.”
The reason it is so disturbing is that up until now it has been assumed that transporting tar sands
bitumen by rail is safer than the light gaseous crude coming from the Bakken because it is a
heavier, denser, less volatile material which is far harder to ignite. This assumption would be
right if it wasn’t for the fact that very little tar sands crude is transported as pure bitumen.
The reality is that the vast majority of tar sands crude being loaded onto trains is loaded at two
unit train terminals in Edmonton and Hardisty, Alberta hundreds of miles away from the tar sands
fields.
The reason these loading terminals are located where they are is that these two places are the
meeting points for a network of pipelines bringing tar sands crude from northern Alberta. The
major export pipelines are also loaded at these two points.
Therefore, the tar sands crude that arrives there has been diluted with pentane or natural gasoline,
a very light hydrocarbon similar to that which is found to be so explosive in the Bakken crude, to
enable it to flow in the pipelines. The dilbit is typically 72% bitumen and 28% diluent.
While it is possible to load undiluted bitumen onto a tank car using steam and heated tank cars to
209
make the sticky bitumen flow, the reality is that this is only happening at a handful of small
terminals located close to tar sands production in Northern Alberta. But these terminals do not
have the capacity to load multiple unit trains (trains of over 100 cars carrying one commodity
from A to B) every day.
The terminals that do have that capacity require a steady and abundant flow of crude to keep the
operation going and therefore these are located at the terminus of the multiple pipelines bringing
tar sands crude from the fields. The result is that unit train terminals load pipeline specification
dilbit and not raw or partially diluted bitumen.
This has huge implications for the safety of tar sands crude-by-rail and this became clear in
northern Ontario last month.
Put simply, the diluent in dilbit makes dilbit just as explosive as Bakken crude.
The Railway Age article laid out the facts. Undiluted bitumen has a flash point of +166ºC and so
would not explode in Ontario’s freezing -40ºC weather, or in fact in most cases. Dilbit has a
much lower flash point than raw bitumen. In fact it has an ignition point at -35ºC, compared to 9ºC for conventional light oil.
Railway Age makes the startling conclusion, “The widespread belief that bitumen from Alberta’s
northern oil sands is far safer to transport by rail than Bakken crude is, for all intents and
purposes, dead wrong.”
The dilbit loaded at these terminals is travelling throughout the continent. Some is delivered to
eastern Canada, some to the U.S. east coast and some to the U.S. Gulf Coast. It passes through
thousands of communities, including through densely populated areas around Chicago,
Philadelphia and elsewhere. It travels alongside the continent’s great waterways and as with
Bakken oil the possibility of catastrophe and pollution follow it wherever it goes.
Based on data from Genscape, we estimate that on average around 100,000 to 150,000 barrels of
dilbit is loaded at terminals in Alberta every day. As it takes on average around nine days for a
train to reach its destination, this means that at any given time there are between 18 and 27 trains
carrying dilbit through the continent loaded with some 900,000 to 1.4 million barrels of dilbit.
Together with the roughly 1 million barrels per day of light, tight crude oil loaded in the Bakken
and elsewhere around the continent the threat is enormous.
Yet regulators have still not moved to guarantee the safety of communities in the path of these
trains, some 19 months since 47 people were killed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec and following
dozens of subsequent incidents. ForestEthics has calculated that some 25 million Americans live
within the blast-zone of crude oil trains and obviously million of Canadians can be added to that
figure.
The U.S. regulator has proposed new rules for tank cars, speed limits and other safety features for
210
handling crude-by-rail and these are currently being considered by the White House. Worryingly,
the proposal included a scheme to move the oldest tank cars, the infamous DOT-111, to Alberta
for carrying tar sands bitumen under the assumption that bitumen does not explode in the same
way as Bakken crude.
This was meant to ease the ‘burden’ of removing DOT-111s from service and replacing them
with new more robust tank cars. Clearly, this cannot be considered in light of the fact that dilbit is
just as explosive as Bakken crude.
It is time for the both the U.S. and Canadian transport regulators to put public safety ahead of the
profits of the oil and rail industries. Tar sands crude is no safer than Bakken on the rails. The fact
is that in pipes or on the rails these crudes are dangerous and dirty.
The appalling level of capture by the industry displayed by the regulators makes the North
American oil boom a train wreck. But it’s not waiting to happen. It has already happened over
and over.
The post Transporting Tar Sands “As Dangerous” As Shale Oil appeared first on Oil Change
International.
March 1, 2015 - Aging Track Caused CN Fiery Derailment
Deteriorating rail infrastructure caused 13 Canadian National Railway tank cars to derail and
explode in a fireball October 19, 2013 in Gainford, Alberta (Edmonton Journal). The
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada recently released its investigative report on the
accident that resulted in a local state of emergency and evacuation of 106 nearby homes. 138
people were evacuated for 4 days and one house was damaged by the intense heat.
Four tank cars loaded with crude oil and 9 pressurized tank cars loaded with liquefied petroleum
gas (propane) fell off CN’s mainline in a curved section of the tracks. Two of the propane tank
cars broke open and caught fire, causing a huge explosion that lit up the night sky. A third tank
car released propane from its safety valve, which ignited.
TSB investigators found 16 transverse cracks in old rails, one of which actually split the track.
The high (outside) rail in the track curve that broke was marked by visible surface cracks and
chunks of rail falling out, said George Fowler, a TSB investigator. The track, made in the 1970s,
was due for replacement. The low (inside) rail in the curve had been replaced in March 2013. The
new rail sat taller than the old worn rail it replaced, which put more pressure and stress on the
older high rail that also needed replacement. Replacing only the low rail “obviously…wasn’t the
right decision based on the derailment” said Fowler. “Railroads are good businesses. They are not
going to replace an asset before they have to”, Fowler continued.
The TSB’s comments certainly highlight one of the main causes of derailments and other
accidents, namely that railway corporations let their rail infrastructure deteriorate to the point
211
where it falls apart. If regular and adequate safety monitoring and maintenance were conducted,
the number of derailments would be significantly lower; however, adequate monitoring and
maintenance cost money and time, which affects the bottom line of railway companies like
Canadian National Railway. Transport Canada has also been repeatedly criticized by the TSB and
rail safety experts for inadequate oversight of companies’ rail safety programs. In many cases,
federal legislation already exists to address rail safety issues; unfortunately, the legislation is
poorly enforced by the federal government. In other cases, new legislation is required to address
shortfalls in rail safety measures.
March 2, 2015 - Crude on Derailed Train Contained High Level of
Gas
Cargo would have violated new vapor-pressure cap that goes into effect in April
By RUSSELL GOLD
Updated March 2, 2015 6:54 p.m. ET
The crude oil aboard the train that derailed and exploded two weeks ago in West Virginia
contained so much combustible gas that it would have been barred from rail transport under
safety regulations set to go into effect next month.
Tests performed on the oil before the train left North Dakota showed it contained a high level of
volatile gases, according to a lab report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The oil’s vapor
pressure, a measure of volatility, was 13.9 pounds per square inch, according to the Feb. 10
report by Intertek Group PLC.
That exceeds the limit of 13.7 psi that North Dakota is set to impose in April on oil moving by
truck or rail from the Bakken Shale. Oil producers that don’t treat their crude to remove excess
gas face fines and possible civil or criminal penalties, said Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the
North Dakota Industrial Commission.
The state introduced new rules on shipping oil in December, after a series of accidents in which
trains carrying crude from the Bakken erupted into fireballs after derailing. As the Journal has
reported, oil from shale formations contains far more combustible gas than traditional crude oil,
which has a vapor pressure of about 6 psi; gasoline has a maximum psi of about 13.5.
The company that shipped the oil, Plains All American Pipeline LP, said it follows all regulations
governing the shipping and testing of crude. “We believe our sampling and testing procedures
and results are in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements,” said Plains spokesman
Brad Leone.
212
New information about the West Virginia accident is likely to increase regulators’ focus on the
makeup of oil being shipped by train. Federal emergency rules adopted last year imposed new
safety requirements on railroad operators but not on energy companies.
“The type of product the train is transporting is also important,” said Sarah Feinberg, the acting
head of the Federal Railroad Administration. “The reality is that we know this product is volatile
and explosive.”
Ms. Feinberg has supported requiring the energy industry to strip out more gases from the crude
oil before shipping it to make the cargo less dangerous, but such measures aren’t currently
included in current or proposed federal rules.
In the wake of the West Virginia accident, members of Congress have called on the White House
to expedite its review of pending safety rules developed by the U.S. Transportation Department.
Timothy Butters, the acting administrator of the department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, said the new regulations were being vetted as quickly as was practical,
given what he called their complexity.
Some critics are calling for lower limits on the vapor pressure of oil moving by rail.
The lower the vapor pressure, the less explosive the oil and “the less chance of it blowing up—
that should be the common goal here,” said Daniel McCoy, the chief executive of Albany County,
N.Y., which has become a transit hub for Bakken crude heading to East Coast refineries.
The train that exploded in West Virginia included 109 tanker cars loaded with about 70,000
barrels of crude. It traveled from Western North Dakota across Minnesota, Illinois and Ohio
before derailing in Mount Carbon, W. Va. Nearly two dozen tanker cars full of crude oil were
engulfed in flames, some exploding into enormous fireballs that towered over the small
community and burned a house to the ground.
The cause of the derailment remains under investigation. State and federal officials have said the
train was traveling well under speed limits imposed last year on trains carrying crude oil. The
train was made up of relatively new tanker cars built to withstand accidents better than older
models.
A couple hours after the derailment, CSX and Plains All American Pipeline turned over
paperwork about the crude to first responders and state and federal investigators. The testing
document was included; the Journal reviewed it after making an open-records request.
A spokesman for CSX Corp. , the railroad that carried the oill at the time of the crash, said it had
stepped up its inspections of the track along this route, a procedure that railroads voluntarily
agreed to last year.
“Documentation provided to CSX indicated that the shipments on the train that derailed were in
compliance with regulations necessary for transportation,” said Gary Sease, a CSX spokesman.
213
“We support additional measures to enhance the safety of oil shipments, and continue to work
cooperatively with regulators, oil producers, tank car manufacturers and others to achieve ever
higher safety performance.”
A spokesman for BNSF Railway Co., which hauled the crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois,
where it was handed off to CSX, declined to comment on the derailment.
Intertek, the testing company, said it is abreast of the regulatory changes and “working closely
with authorities and our clients to assure compliance.”
The U.S. Transportation Department is testing samples of crude that didn’t spill or burn and says
it plans to compare its findings with the North Dakota test.
The fire burned for three and a half days. “If it is burning hard, you can’t put it out,” said Benny
Filiaggi, the deputy chief of the Montgomery Fire Department, who responded to the West
Virginia derailment. He said he received training from CSX about oil-train fires in October.
“We concentrated on evacuating everyone nearby before the first explosion,” Mr. Filiaggi said.
March 2, 2015 - PennEnvironment crunched the numbers and our
new oil trains report contains some shocking data.
Nearly 4 million Pennsylvanians live within the potential evacuation zone for an oil train
accident.
PennEnvionment's report goes a step further. It includes information down to the county and zip
code level about how many people live near these disastrous oil train routes. Find out if you are
living in the evacuation zone for these trains and then share the map on Facebook. [1]
214
The report, developed with FracTracker, has already been covered in media outlets across the
state including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Scranton Times-Tribune,and more than 10 TV
stations from Philadelphia to Harrisburg to the Lehigh Valley.
Each story makes one thing clear: The oil trains are unacceptable, but their dangers are unknown
to so many Pennsylvanians. Most of us would be unprepared if a derailment happened near us,
and no one should have to lose their home or life because of these hazardous trains.
Pennsylvania has already had three oil train derailments over the past two years, and the next one
could be much worse. No one in Pennsylvania should have to take that chance.
Thanks,
David Masur
January 20, 2015 - Building Their Own Gallows: The Oil Pipelines
The debate surrounding labor's support for oil pipelines has largely centered on a false "jobs
versus climate" dichotomy. But labor's position is also alienating them from their potential allies
while strengthening the hand of their sworn enemies.
There's a popular saying on the left that organized labor would build their own gallows if they
were offered the jobs, and nowhere is this more true than in labor's support for the
environmentally disastrous Keystone XL, Enbridge Sandpiper and Bakken oil pipelines.
As in much of the debate surrounding climate change, proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline,
215
like Teamster president James P. Hoffa, generally argue that short-term job creation and
economic growth trump environmental concerns about the long-term fate of the planet.
"America needs more good-paying jobs that support middle-class families. This project supplies
them," Hoffa wrote in a letter published by The Detroit News in December 2014. He went on to
claim that environmental concerns have been addressed by state and federal regulators, as well as
by the oil company itself.
"It will be safer than any other domestic oil pipeline system built under current code," he added.
In reality of course, it is the jobs argument that is overblown, and it is the environmental threat to
the survival of every living thing on earth that labor habitually understates or ignores.
The bottom line is there won't be any jobs, or an economy at all, if the planet is no longer
hospitable to human life. There's no such thing as a safe oil pipeline because extracting fossil
fuels from the ground and burning them into the atmosphere is what causes catastrophic climate
change, not accidental oil spills.
But while the "jobs versus climate" debate is likely to continue inside mainstream circles for
some time, the left also needs to begin discussing in more detail two other important aspects of
the issue: 1) The impact pipeline politics has on labor's relationship with other social movement
actors. 2) How labor's position could actually strengthen the hand of the same corporate power
players that are hell bent on destroying organized labor and relegating effective workers'
organizations to the dustbin of history.
"Labor isn't exactly endearing themselves to rural landowners," Ross Grooters, an environmental
activist with the Bakken Pipeline Resistance in Iowa and a unionized train engineer, told
Truthout.
"If labor wants to grow, it can't have people who should be sympathetic to them standing against
them. In the long run, labor risks becoming exactly what they are so often accused of, a thinly
veiled extension of the corporation," Grooters said.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening in the Midwest. In Iowa, a December 15, 2014,
public hearing on the Bakken oil pipeline saw more than 40 statewide labor leaders standing on
the opposite side of hundreds of environmental activists and family farmers.
"I don't think the unions are taking how the landowners feel into consideration," said Arlene
Bates, a family farmer and rural Iowa property owner. Her farm sits in the path of the proposed
Bakken pipeline and she is concerned about the impact it could have on her crops, soil and the
state's water quality.
"They need to realize this is going to do more harm to the state of Iowa than good," Bates told
Truthout. "Everybody needs a job, but I don't think they are looking at the full picture. This is a
short-term project, and the environment is my biggest concern."
216
In Minnesota, labor union officials packed a January 5 public hearing on the Enbridge Sandpiper
pipeline and their support also drew criticism from property owners opposed to the project.
"When we went to the meeting, it was kind of bizarre because labor said they needed the pipeline
for jobs, and I don't think that's what this is about," said Steve Schulstrom, an organic farmer and
member of the Carlton County Land Stewards, whose property sits just two miles south of the
proposed pipeline route.
"The question should be whether or not this pipeline is needed for the public good," he said.
Schulstrom added that labor officials at the meeting wouldn't even consider changing the route of
the pipeline in order to avoid sensitive farmland, even if it might have created more work for
them.
"It's like they were given talking points that they couldn't deviate from. It's strange that you have
a labor union that is being dictated to by a corporation. That is backwards of my understanding of
how labor unions are supposed to work. And it could backfire. In the long run, if they keep this
up, labor is not going to have any friends left. You can't do anything by yourself," he said.
But labor's support for big oil pipelines doesn't just risk driving a wedge between them and
everyday Americans like Bates and Schulstrom. Their support could also help grow the power of
the same big money corporations that spend billions of dollars every election cycle in a concerted
effort to destroy the labor movement once and for all.
Bold Nebraska, a coalition of farmers, ranchers and environmentalists fighting the Keystone XL
pipeline, issued a report recently that takes the labor movement to task for forging an alliance
with corporate interest groups that regularly oppose workers' rights.
The investigative exposé, titled "Bold Report: LIUNA Partners with Anti-Union Forces, AFP and
ALEC; Advocating with Koch Money for Risky Keystone XL Tarsands Pipeline," states:
The industry and political partnerships that LIUNA has forged to gain approval of Keystone XL
seriously undermines workers' rights and unions' strength, and display a complete lack of concern
for the broader labor movement or even the longer-term interests of LIUNA members.
In fact, their partnerships with the fossil fuel industry and far right political groups, namely
Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC), contribute to the vicious attacks on workers, unions and democracy.
And if these pipelines are built, it will ultimately mean even more money in the back pockets of
big corporations, which will undoubtedly use the profits to continue to lobby for right-to-work
laws, gutting the National Labor Relations Board, privatizing Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid, and repealing workman's compensation, workplace safety and minimum wage
standards (to say nothing of dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency).
217
Taking all this into consideration, it becomes clear that labor's support of oil pipeline projects has
ramifications that go far beyond the narrow confines of a false "jobs versus climate" debate.
Labor's inability to see the forest from the trees on this issue could actually strengthen corporate
power against the working class's own self-interest, creating a self-perpetuating downward spiral
as destructive as any methane feedback loop.
In that sense, organized labor isn't just building its own gallows. They are also handing their
enemies the rope to hang themselves with, while inadvertently assuring they may have no friends
left who are willing to come to their aid and cut the string.
February 4 , 2015 - Authorities: 11 cars of freight train derail in
Iowa; 3 cars catch fire, 3 plunge into river
 Article by: Associated Press
 Updated: February 4, 2015 - 5:45 PM

DUBUQUE, Iowa — Eleven cars of a freight train derailed Wednesday in a rural area in eastern
Iowa where local authorities said three cars caught fire and three more plunged into the
Mississippi River.
Ten of the derailed cars on the eastbound Canadian Pacific train were carrying ethanol, some of
which was leaking into the river, Dubuque Fire Chief Rick Steines told the Dubuque Telegraph
Herald. He said it wasn't immediately clear how much.
"The scene is really hard to access right now. It's right along the river at the edge of a valley with
very poor access," Steines said in a videotaped interview posted on the newspaper website.
The cars went off the tracks at 11:20 a.m. in a remote uninhabited area about 10 miles north of
Dubuque. Steines said no one was being allowed within a half-mile of the burning cars as a
precaution but that the nearest farm was outside the safety zone so no residents were evacuated.
The railroad had emergency response equipment designed to handle derailments on the way and a
hazardous materials team also was responding.
"They'll have to determine the next step," Steines said.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources spokesman Kevin Baskins said his department sent
officers to the scene to assess the environmental impact but they weren't being allowed near the
train. He said officials in Davenport, Burlington and Keokuk, which use the Mississippi River as
a drinking water source, were notified as a precaution.
Two crew members on the train escaped without injury, railroad spokeswoman Salem Woodrow
said.
"CP's emergency protocols were immediately enacted and all safety precautions and measures are
218
being taken as our crews respond to the incident," she said. "At this time our focus is public
safety and the environment."
February 5, 2015 - Top U.S. rail administrator has little train
experience
David McCumber and Dan Freedman
Published 11:06 pm, Thursday, February 5, 2015
WASHINGTON -- At a time when the federal government is grappling with yet another MetroNorth Railroad tragedy and potentially dangerous oil-carrying freight trains are proliferating, the
agency charged with making railroads safer is being run on an interim basis by a Democratic
political operative with scant rail experience.
The Federal Railroad Administration, the embattled safety regulator for the nation's freight and
passenger rail, is currently headed by an acting administrator, Sarah Feinberg. In January,
Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx put Feinberg, 37, then his chief of staff, into the role
after former administrator Joseph Szabo resigned.
Feinberg has a resume loaded with high-level jobs as a communications specialist and
Democratic staffer. She was an assistant to Rahm Emanuel when he was President Barack
Obama's White House chief of staff and later Director of Communications and Corporate
Strategy at Facebook. She also worked on Capitol Hill for years, as communications director for
the House Democratic Caucus and as national press secretary for former Senate Minority Leader
Tom Daschle. Feinberg was formerly married to Dan Pfeiffer, a key White House adviser whose
service to the president dates back to Obama's days as senator from Illinois.
But her executive experience doesn't include running anything the size and complexity of the
FRA, and she does not have much experience with railroads. That's led some to question whether
she's a good fit to lead an agency widely thought to need an urgent overhaul.
The FRA is likely to undergo even closer scrutiny in light of Tuesday's Metro-North accident in
which a Harlem Line train collided with an SUV in Valhalla, N.Y., killing six.
Feinberg worked the phone that evening, briefing senior officials and was at the crash site the
morning after, keeping Foxx and the department's senior staff abreast of the investigation in its
early stages, a DOT spokesman said.
"Having worked with Sarah for a number of years, it was not a surprise that she was immediately
in the thick of things, coordinating staff, and headed to New York to meet with investigators and
staff on the ground," said the spokesman, Brian Farber.
Feinberg declined an interview request for this story.
219
The agency has come under fire from both parties in Congress for being too close to the industry
it regulates, and for repeatedly disregarding recommendations made by the National
Transportation Safety Board to improve rail safety.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
member, gives Feinberg high marks for her efforts in the month since her appointment.
"She's a breath of fresh air to the agency," he said. "She's brought a significant and transformative
level of transparency."
But Blumenthal pointed out that federal law specifies that the FRA administrator "shall be an
individual with professional experience in railroad safety, hazardous materials safety, or other
transportation safety."
Frederick Hill, spokesman for Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
chairman John Thune, R-S.D., declined to comment on "confirmation prospects for someone
who has not been nominated."
February 2, 2015 - Natural gas could come to Fairbanks via railroad
Posted: Monday, February 2, 2015 11:40 pm
By Matt Buxton [email protected]
JUNEAU — The Alaska Railroad is applying to become the nation’s first railroad system to ship
natural gas by rail, a move that comes as the state looks for cheap ways to deliver the product to
Fairbanks.
Alaska Railroad Corp. CEO Bill O’Leary told the Senate Finance Committee on Monday that the
public corporation will apply this week with the Federal Railroad Administration to carry
liquefied natural gas containers.
The attention comes a week after the state announced plans to buy Fairbanks Natural Gas and
parent company Pentex in a bid to bring an increased supply of gas from Cook Inlet to Fairbanks.
Gov. Bill Walker said he’s targeting a low price for gas and will be looking to use the
underutilized Alaska Railroad to achieve that goal.
“With these announcements, we are certainly ready, willing and able to help with the movement
of LNG,” O’Leary told the committee.
O’Leary said the application with the federal agency would allow the state railroad to begin
shipping liquefied natural gas containers, known as ISO containers. He said the practice is
common in Japan but has never been done in the United States. He said he expects the approval
220
process to take about six months.
The ISO containers would take a bit longer to purchase and put into action, about 12 to 18
months, O’Leary said. When asked just how much it would cost the railroad to ship gas, he
declined to give an exact number.
“Ours is just one portion in the larger supply chain on this,” he said. “ We have been working
with a number of different possible shippers and have quoted differently on different logistical
solutions.”
O’Leary said a couple of companies have approached the railroad in the last year to explore
shipping gas to Fairbanks.
The ISO containers have a capacity of about 11,000 gallons of LNG, meaning each container can
carry about 908,000 cubic feet of natural gas. If the rail supply were to match the 6 billion cubic
feet per year projected output of the now-scrapped North Slope processing plant, it would take a
little more than 18 ISO containers per day to supply the Interior. Two ISO containers can fit on
one rail car, O’Leary said.
Alaska Railroad Corp. spokesman Tim Sullivan, in an email after the meeting, gave additional
insight into how the railroad would handle shipping gas.
“The operating model that we’ve been looking at has the shippers owning or leasing the ISO
containers, not the Alaska Railroad,” he said. “Our belief is that they would be ordered as soon as
there is a decision made on shipping the gas by rail.”
Still, many lawmakers continued to air skepticism about the state’s plan to buy Fairbanks Natural
Gas. In a news conference Monday morning, Soldotna Republican Sen. Peter Micciche said he
thought it wasn’t a good move because the purchase doesn’t guarantee additional gas supplies to
Fairbanks. Micciche is the manager of the ConocoPhillips gas export plant in Kenai.
“I would hope that they reconsider,” he said. “I think there are other options that should be
evaluated, and it’s clear that this deal really provides nothing in additional supplies to the
Interior.”
Micciche floated the idea of using a cheap and readily accessible plastic pipeline to provide a
direct route of additional gas to Fairbanks. He was critical of any plan, including providing it by
rail, that adds more handling steps to the gas.
After the meeting, he showed off a piece of 4-inch FlexSteel pipe, a plastic pipe reinforced with
sheets of steel. He said an 8-inch line could supply Fairbanks and could be put into the ground
quickly, cutting out the need for costly liquefaction and re-gasification plants.
Micciche said he plans to hold a review of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority’s plans to purchase Pentex in the Senate Special Committee on Energy, which he cochairs with Fairbanks Sen. Click Bishop, at 1:30 p.m. Thursday.
221
When asked about the possibility of a pipeline, AIDEA spokesman Karsten Rodvik said it would
be considered.
“We will evaluate this option for its potential in getting natural gas to Interior Alaska,” he said.
“We will be looking at all options.”
AIDEA is pursuing a sale agreement with Pentex with a deadline of Feb. 28.
O’Leary said he was confident that rail can serve as a lower-cost alternative to trucking gas north
and said the railroad has been in talks with the Walker administration about the potential.
“We’re much more efficient for moving bulk quantities than by moving by truck,” he said. “And
we’re looking for business.”
February 12, 2015 - Revised Oil-Train Safety Rule Said to Delay
Upgrade Deadline
by Jim Snyder
2:52 PM EST
February 12, 2015
(Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration revised its proposal to prevent oil trains from catching
fire in derailments, giving companies more time to upgrade their fleets but sticking with a
requirement that new tank cars have thicker walls and better brakes.
The changes, described by three people familiar with the proposal who asked not to be identified
because the plan has not been made public, are in proposed regulations the U.S. Transportation
Department sent to the White House last week for review prior to being released.
The administration is revising safety standards after a series of oil-train accidents, including a
2013 disaster in Canada that killed 47 people when a runaway train derailed and blew up. Earlier
this month a train carrying ethanol derailed and caught fire outside of Dubuque, Iowa. No one
was hurt.
Companies that own tank cars opposed the aggressive schedule for modifying cars in the DOT’s
July draft, saying it would have cost billions of dollars and could slow oil production. That plan
gave companies two years to retrofit cars hauling the most volatile crude oil, including from
North Dakota’s booming Bakken field.
Railroads and oil companies fought the brake requirement and proposed a standard for the steel
walls that was thinner than suggested by the agency.
‘Too Long’
222
Karen Darch, the mayor of the Chicago suburb of Barrington, Illinois, and an advocate for safer
cars, said she was encouraged that the rules included stronger tank cars and upgraded brakes. She
disagreed with adding years to the retrofit deadline.
“Taking more time on something that’s already taken too long is problematic,” Darch said
Thursday in a phone interview.
Officials in the President Barack Obama’s Office of Management and Budget could change the
proposal before the final version is released, probably in May. Darius Kirkwood, a spokesman at
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Transportation Department unit
that wrote the rule, said he couldn’t comment on a proposed rule.
“The department has and will continue to put a premium on getting this critical rule done as
quickly as possible, but we’ve always committed ourselves to getting it done right,”
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said this month in a statement about the timing of the
safety rule.
Rolling Deadlines
The current proposal would require companies to first upgrade tank cars known as DOT-111s,
which safety investigators have said are prone to puncture in rail accidents, according to one of
the people. Cars with an extra jacket of protection would remain in use longer before undergoing
modifications, according to one of the people.
A newer model known as the CPC-1232, which the industry in 2011 voluntarily agreed to build
in response to safety concerns, would have a later deadline than the DOT-111s for modification
or replacement, three people said.
The CPC-1232s have more protection at the ends of the cars and than the DOT-111s and a
reinforced top fitting.
The draft rule also would require that new tank cars be built with steel shells that are 9/16th of an
inch thick, the people said. The walls of the current cars, both DOT-111s and CPC-1232s, are
7/16th of an inch thick.
A joint proposal from the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of American
Railroads argued to set the tank-car shell thickness at half an inch, or 8/16ths.
Company Lobbying
Railroads and oil companies also lobbied against a proposal that the trains have electronically
controlled pneumatic brakes, which are designed to stop all rolling cars at a same time.
The Association of American Railroads in June told Transportation Department officials that the
223
electronic brakes would cost as much as $15,000 for each car and have only a minimal safety
impact.
Trains often haul 100 or more tank cars filled with crude. These trains have increasingly been
used to haul crude as oil production has boomed in places, like North Dakota, that don’t have
enough pipelines.
Rail shipments of oil surged to 408,000 car loads last year from 11,000 in 2009.
February 16, 2015 - West Virginia Train Derailment Sends Oil
Tanker Into River
MOUNT CARBON, W.Va. — Feb 16, 2015, 5:54 PM ET
By JOHN RABY Associated Press
A train carrying more than 100 tankers of crude oil derailed in southern West Virginia on
Monday, sending at least one into the Kanawha River, igniting at least 14 tankers and sparking a
house fire, officials said.
There were no immediate reports of injuries. Nearby residents were told to evacuate as a state
emergency response and environmental officials headed to the scene about 30 miles southeast of
Charleston.
The state was under a winter storm warning and getting heavy snowfall at times, with as much as
5 inches in some places. It's not clear if the weather had anything to do with the derailment,
which occurred about 1:20 EST along a flat stretch of rail.
Public Safety spokesman Lawrence Messina said responders at the scene reported one tanker and
possibly another went into the river. Messina said local emergency responders were having
trouble getting to the house that caught fire.
James Bennett, 911 coordinator for Fayette County, said he knew of no injuries related to the
house fire or subsequent tanker fires. He said a couple hundred families were evacuated as a
precaution.
The rail company acknowledged the derailment on its Twitter page.
"A CSX train derailed in Mount Carbon, WV," the company tweeted. "We are working with first
responders on the scene to ensure the safety of the community."
The fire continued burning along a hillside Monday evening, and small fires could be seen on the
river.
David McClung said he felt the heat from one of the explosions at his home about a half mile up
the hill.
224
His brother in law was outside at the time of the derailment and heard a loud crack below along
the riverfront, then went inside to summon McClung, his wife and their son.
One of the explosions that followed sent a fireball at least 300 feet into the air, McClung said.
"We felt the heat, I can tell you that," McClung said. "It was a little scary. It was like an atomic
bomb went off."
The office of Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, which has issued a state of emergency, said the tanker cars
were loaded with Bakken crude from North Dakota and headed to Yorktown, Va.
Local emergency officials said all but two of the 109 cars being hauled were tanker cars.
West Virginia American Water spokeswoman Laura Jordan said the company shut down a water
treatment plant, located about 3 miles from the derailment, at about 2:30 p.m. The plant serves
about 2,000 customers.
State health officials said another water plant downstream in the town of Cedar Grove also closed
its intake. They asked customers from both water systems to conserve water.
The U.S. Transportation Department is weighing tougher safety regulations for rail shipments of
crude, which can ignite and result in huge fireballs.
Responding to a series of fiery train crashes, including one this spring in Lynchburg, Va., the
government proposed rules in July that would phase out tens of thousands of older tank cars that
carry increasing quantities of crude oil and other highly flammable liquids. It's not clear how old
the tankers were on the derailed train.
February 17, 2015 - Derailments highlights crude oil train, water
safety issues
Tuesday, February 17, 2015 by Ken Ward Jr., Staff writer
Early in the morning on July 6, 2013, a 72-car runaway train carrying crude oil from North
Dakota to New Brunswick, Canada, crashed in the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic. The resulting
fire and explosion left 47 people dead and half of the downtown’s buildings destroyed.
It could have happened here, as this week’s derailment showed.
Early Monday afternoon, a CSX train with 107 cars of highly volatile Bakken crude oil from
North Dakota left the tracks not far from the Fayette-Kanawha County border.
Many details remain sketchy about the crash and its immediate aftermath, in which flames shot
high into the sky and black smoke billowed over the area, creating a frightening scene for a
225
community already hit by a daytime snowstorm and continued frigid temperatures.
Twenty-six of those 30,000-gallon tanker cars derailed and nearly 20 of those caught fire. At least
one home was destroyed. More than 2,400 nearby residents were initially evacuated. Drinking
water intake pumps that serve the nearby community of Montgomery were closed out of concern
that oil had contaminated the Kanawha River. Remarkably, no one was killed and the only injury
appeared to be one person treated for respiratory problems.
The near-disaster brought immediate repeats of long-standing calls for action amid the nation’s
growing reliance on oil from the Bakken and the recent dramatic increases in the amount of it
being shipped by rail.
“This accident, and the pattern of regularly occurring horrifying accidents we’ve seen over the
last two years, shows that you cannot safely transport this crude oil by rail,” said Kristen Boyles,
a staff attorney with the group Earthjustice. “The federal regulators are missing in action and are
exposing millions of Americans to exploding death trains.”
Earthjustice is among the groups have been pushing the U.S. Department of Transportation for
stronger regulation that would take effect sooner to ban older cars that many experts consider
unsafe for carrying crude oil because they are prone to rupture during derailments.
Over the last three years, railway shipments of crude oil in the U.S. have skyrocketed, from fewer
than 75,000 cars in 2011 to more than 400,000 in 2013, according to industry figures.
The National Transportation Safety Board has also called for tougher standards, warning of
“major loss of life, property damage and environmental consequences” that can occur when
crude oil or other flammable liquids are carried in significant volumes as a larger train’s only
cargo.
“The large-scale shipment of crude oil by rail simply didn’t exist 10 years ago, and our safety
regulations need to catch up with this new reality,” then-NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman
said last year. “While this energy boom is good for business, the people and the environment
along rail corridors must be protected from harm.”
CSX officials said that they are still trying to sort out exactly what happened on Monday
afternoon, and that the results of investigations would provide valuable information to prevent
future incidents.
“We try to run a safe railroad,” company spokesman Gary Sease said Tuesday morning on the
West Virginia MetroNews “Talkline” radio show. “Obviously, something has gone wrong there in
West Virginia.”
Sease confirmed Tuesday that the train that derailed in West Virginia was using a newer model of
tanker called the CPC-1232, named for an information circular and designed to meet a voluntary
industry standard.
226
Fred Millar, a Washington, D.C.-based hazardous materials safety advocate, said that the CPC1232 is only “marginally better” than the older tanks, known as “111s.” Though those tanks are
no longer made, thousands of them are still in use, and a major issue for critics is that
government regulators haven’t moved quickly enough to outlaw them.
“The rail infrastructure is really not ready for ... new massive transcontinental shipment of 100car unit trains at high speeds through our cities and along our rivers,” Millar said.
In West Virginia, citizen groups were quick to note that the crude-oil derailment — just upstream
from two public water intakes — occurred just hours after lawmakers held a public hearing at
which environmentalists warned of efforts to gut new chemical storage tank and drinking water
protections passed after last January’s Freedom Industries chemical leak on the Elk River.
Evan Hansen, a consultant with the firm Downstream Strategies, noted that a new state
commission studying such issues recommended in December that public drinking water systems
be given more information about potential contamination threats from “transportation of
contaminants by road, rail and water.”
“This is a vivid example of the threats to our drinking water and the need for planning to
minimize the risk of contamination,” Hansen said. “I hope the Legislature pulls back on efforts to
gut key portions of Senate Bill 373 and instead thinks about how to strengthen it.”
Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said, “It is wickedly
ironic that just hours before the train derailment, citizens were speaking up at a legislative public
hearing for the Category A protection of the Kanawha River as a drinking water supply. Then
catastrophe hits the Kanawha, and the Montgomery water system shut down. If this isn’t enough
of a message that better protection of our water supplies and adequate backup systems are
necessary, I don’t know what is.”
February 17, 2015 U.S. oil trains are taking high-stakes risks with
lives: Kemp
Reuters
John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own
LONDON, Feb 17 – Five hundred and ninety one days have passed since a train carrying crude
oil derailed and incinerated the town of Lac Megantic in Quebec.
In that time, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has still not finalized new safety rules
on tank car standards and operational controls for trains carrying highly flammable liquids.
DOT started working on new rules in April 2012 — more than a year before the devastating fire
227
at Lac Megantic in July 2013, which claimed the lives of 47 people — so the process has so far
taken 1,041 days.
DOT has now sent a draft to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final review and
revisions but does not expect the final rule to be gazetted until May 12.
Even then, new tank car standards could be phased in over several years by 2017/18, and oil
shippers are pressing for an even longer transition period.
If the timetable now sticks, it will have taken at least six years to implement new standards for
tank cars that were recognized as necessary back in 2012. It is an astonishing example of
regulatory failure.
This is unacceptably slow. While regulators, lobbyists and lawyers for crude shippers have been
sparring in Washington over whether new standards are necessary, and how long the industry
should be given to comply with them, crude-carrying trains have been derailing and catching fire
with frightening frequency.
On Monday, a crude-carrying train operated by CSX railroad derailed in West Virginia, setting at
least 14 tank cars ablaze and forcing the evacuation of two nearby towns.
On the day before, a train operated by Canadian National Railway and carrying 100 tank cars of
crude derailed in a remote part of northern Ontario and caught fire.
Since Lac Megantic, there have been at least 11 other serious derailments across the United
States and Canada involving trains shipping large volumes of oil, according to a tally published
by the Congressional Research Service (“U.S. rail transport of crude oil: background and issues
for Congress,” Dec 2014).
Serious incidents involving crude-carrying trains posing a significant threat to life, property and
the environment are occurring on average once every seven weeks.
Between 2006 and April 2014, there were 16 significant accidents involving high-hazard trains
carrying crude oil or ethanol. In total 281 tank cars derailed, nearly 5 million gallons of crude or
ethanol were released when the tank cars were breached, and there were 48 fatalities, according
to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
So far, most of the derailments have occurred in remote areas and small rural communities,
lessening their impact, both in terms of physical damage and political sensitivity. But it is only a
matter of time before a train derails in a major urban area like Chicago or Albany, both of which
are rail centers handling large numbers of oil trains, causing mass casualties.
UNSAFE TANK CARS
The problem has been extensively chronicled in accident investigation reports by the NTSB
228
dating as far back as 1992.
Unlike the pressure tank cars used to transport other highly flammable or poisonous liquids, the
DOT-111 design tank cars which carry most crude and ethanol cannot reliably contain their load
in the event of an accident.
DOT-111 tank cars lack full head shields to prevent end-on punctures in the event of a collision.
Their tank walls are significantly thinner. There is no requirement for them to have thermal
protection to protect against fire. And many have fittings which shear off in accidents, according
to NTSB (“Rail accidents involving crude oil and ethanol releases,” April 2014).
NTSB has repeatedly warned DOT-111 tank cars are not suitable for carrying flammable loads
like crude and ethanol. Canada has already mandated their accelerated phase-out following Lac
Megantic.
But the United States is still arguing over who should have primary responsibility for improving
train safety and how long shippers should be given to phase out unsafe tank cars.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
Oil shippers argue the railroads need to do a better job of keeping trains and tank cars on the
rails, while railroads argue shippers need to use better tank cars that will not catch fire.
Obviously, the solution requires both. In an ideal world, tank cars should never come off the
rails; the number of derailments has indeed been alarmingly high. But accidents happen and it is
critical that when they do, tank cars should contain their contents safely until emergency
responders can deal with the situation.
Attempts to address the safety problem have become bogged down by fighting over whether
crude is really a highly flammable liquid (the answer to that question should be obvious by now);
whether DOT-111 tank cars are up to the job (the answer is clearly no); and how quickly DOT111 tank cars should be phased out of crude service (within three years or up to a decade).
Railroad operators have made relatively speedy progress in agreeing new rules and operating
procedures for trains carrying large volumes of crude and ethanol which went into effect in
August 2013 (“Circular OT-55-N: Recommended railroad operating practices for transportation
of hazardous materials”).
Procedures for “key trains” include lower speed limits, heightened safety protocols which give
such high-hazard trains priority over all other traffic on the network and require more frequent
track inspections, as well as routing them around densely-populated urban areas where possible.
Crude oil shippers have responded much more slowly, arguing that crude is not especially
dangerous and they should be given much longer to phase out DOT-111s.
The problem is exacerbated by the allocation of liability. Most DOT-111 tank cars are owned by
shippers rather than the railroads themselves. But in the event of an accident, it is the railroad
229
which is held responsible.
As common carriers, railroads must accept any cargo, including crude, provided it is offered in a
tank car with an approved design, which at the moment includes DOT-111s.
As some railroad executives have noted, every time they accept a dangerous consignment such as
chlorine, ammonia or a large number of oil tank cars, the potential liabilities mean they are quite
literally betting the company. In contrast, shippers are largely exempted from liability.
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE
If the U.S. government insists on a new rule that phases out DOT-111 tank cars from crude oil
and ethanol service, the costs will largely fall on the shippers, who will have to replace their tank
cars.
Little wonder oil shippers have tenaciously fought proposals for an accelerated phase out of
DOT-111s from oil and ethanol service, raising concerns about the rule-making process itself and
citing limitations on how quickly more tank cars could be ordered.
Aggressive lobbying and lawyering has slowed the regulatory response to the problem in the
United States. But it is a short-sighted approach which is putting the entire oil-by-rail industry in
jeopardy.
With serious accidents running at one every seven weeks or so, it is only a matter of time before
one occurs in a big urban area and causes mass casualties. In the politically charged aftermath,
the entire crude by rail will be at risk.
It is time to remove the lawyers and lobbyists from the process and reach a top-level political and
business decision between the DOT and chief executives from both the railroads and the shipping
companies to accelerate the phase out of dangerous DOT-111 tank cars and protect the entire
industry.
February 18, 2015 - Damaged rail cars enjoy lenient rules as oil
train explosions plague small towns
Blake Sobczak, E&E reporter
EnergyWire: Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Rail cars hauling crude oil have had a bumpy ride over the past few years.
From Quebec to Virginia, the extreme forces of crude-laden tank car collisions in recent years
have split steel like an orange rind. On Monday, another milelong CSX Corp. oil train derailed
and caught fire near Montgomery, W.Va., destroying a home and forcing hundreds of people to
evacuate.
230
But more often than not, damaged rail cars don't cause a disaster. And sometimes those damaged
cars are attached to the end of another long oil train heading in the same direction.
To get cars to the repair shop, shippers plug leaks and seek a special "one-time movement
approval" from the Federal Railroad Administration. In other words, they keep moving a
damaged oil tank car on the tracks toward its destination. The agency rarely rejects a one-time
movement request, according to records.
Instead, the agency will "work with the requestor to ensure the information provided is complete
and accurate and that appropriate safety measures are taken prior to moving the cars."
The result? No damaged cars approved for one-time movement leaked any hazardous materials
or caused any injuries last year, according to FRA.
While that safety record keeps the agency out of the cross hairs of members of Congress or angry
local officials, questions are being raised about a policy that allows cars with significant damage
to travel on tracks that pass through hundreds of small American towns. Some of those cars still
contain crude oil and other hazardous materials.
Flush with oil
Train crews spotted the first leak on the border of Idaho and Washington last month.
Oil had stained the side of one of 97 tank cars hauling crude from the Bakken Shale play in North
Dakota. BNSF Railway Co. employees took the car out of service on Jan. 11 as the rest of the
train rumbled past tiny Hauser, Idaho -- a pit stop in the "virtual pipeline" linking oil-rich North
Dakota to West Coast refineries via rail.
By the time the train reached Vancouver, Wash., the next day, six more cars had sprung leaks and
were pulled aside. On Jan. 13, yet another seven cars were found to have spilled crude in Auburn,
Wash., about 100 miles south of the train's final destination, a refinery in Anacortes run by Tesoro
Corp.
In all, a few dozen gallons of crude had slopped over the tops and edges of the 14 cars, but no oil
ever reached the ground, according to BNSF.
The damaged cars weren't stopped for long. After rail workers plugged the leaky valves and
cleaned the outside of the 14 tankers, they hit the tracks again, still full of crude and as yet
unrepaired.
The oil-laden cars were cleared to move under an obscure but growing popular exemption to
federal hazardous materials rules: the One-Time Movement Approval (OTMA).
Permit in hand, shippers such as Tesoro Corp. can legally move cracked, dented or overweight
tank cars to their end destinations before getting repairs.
231
"One-time movement, that is something that we're very interested in because in those cases, we're
dealing with something where there's already been a problem," said Jason Lewis, transportation
policy adviser for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, which is
investigating last month's series of spills en route to Tesoro's refinery.
But with only one rail hazardous materials inspector, and four inspectors total for all aspects of
rail safety in the state, Lewis said his department is limited in how it approaches OTMAs.
"We would like the ability to have inspectors there to make sure that everything that's being done
is in the public interest, for public safety," he said.
The popularity of "one-time" approvals for DOT-111s -- the kind of aging tank cars often used to
ship crude oil -- mirrors the rise in crude-by-rail shipments, which were practically nonexistent in
2007 but were on track to hit 500,000 tank carloads in 2014, based on preliminary industry data.
Crude-by-rail's sudden rise has exposed gaps in Department of Transportation oversight in the
past.
Loose wording in DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
guidelines allowed railroads to move millions of gallons of oil without preparing a
comprehensive emergency spill response plan (EnergyWire, April 22, 2014).
PHMSA is working to close that loophole and has separately sent a sweeping oil-by-rail safety
rule to the White House for review (EnergyWire, Feb. 6).
Regulators have hinted at gaps in their oversight of one-time approvals to move cargo, as fuel
logistics firms such as USD Group and Musket Corp. increasingly turn to the once-obscure
approval process.
In a 2011 agency meeting, William Schoonover, staff director of FRA's hazardous materials
division, reassured his colleagues that the one-time movement permitting program "has been in
place for more than 15 years now without an injury, fatality or release of hazardous materials for
shipments moving under an approval."
FRA officials say approvals give regulators a way to gather important data on hazardous material
safety practices.
Still, the number of requests -- and corresponding approvals -- has steadily increased. In 2007,
the agency issued 380 approvals for all types of rail cars no longer conforming to federal rules.
Four years later, FRA was handling more than 1,000 requests per year. By 2013, FRA issued 564
one-time movement approvals for crude-laden cars alone.
FRA updated its program in 2012 to cut down on the deluge of applications. The reforms
established a "standing approval" for certain minor flaws. That means in most cases, shippers
don't have to wait for a written nod from FRA to move tank cars with defective safety valves,
dented metal, leaky heating coils (for heavy crude) or bad bottom outlet valves.
232
Railroad officials flagged concerns about overweight cars in their draft crude-by-rail rule last
summer. They noted that the nature of the fuel logistics business -- in which "key" trains of 80
cars or more rush from North Dakota to East Coast refineries without so much as stopping for
classification at a rail yard -- may prevent regulators from tracking tank cars considered too
heavy to be safe.
An FRA official said the agency aims to boost reporting of overweight rail cars through "outreach
and education." The official noted that an overweight tank car hasn't necessarily been filled with
too much crude by volume. That's because scales calculate the gross weight of the tank car and
its contents -- not the weight of the crude alone.
"Be advised, it is the shipper's responsibility to ensure the car is not overloaded by volume and
the car complies with [federal hazardous materials regulations]," warned FRA safety specialist
Erich Rudolph in a one-time movement approval granted to an undisclosed crude oil shipper on
April 29, 2014.
The car in question was 3,900 pounds overweight and had been cleared to move roughly 340
miles from Chattanooga, Tenn., to the Hunt Southland refinery in Rogerslacy, Miss., records
show.
The next day, a CSX Corp. train hauling oil derailed and caught fire in Lynchburg, Va., hurting
no one but leaking crude into the James River. That train did not include the weighty tank car
approved the previous day for a ride on Norfolk Southern Railway.
'Some manner of defect'
Regulators have pushed for clearer markers on cars moving under one-time approvals in case an
accident upsets the process's pristine record.
"The FRA believes that better identification of rail cars moving under One-Time Movement
Approvals (OTMAs) listed on the train consist would provide further benefit to emergency
responders as these cars generally have some manner of defect," PHMSA Administrator Cynthia
Quarterman noted in a July 16, 2013, letter to experts at the National Transportation Safety
Board. Quarterman has since left PHMSA.
NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said the safety watchdog's hazmat inspectors "have not come
across [OTMA] as a problem."
"Of course, we check the filling history of cars involved in accidents, and we would have noted if
they were overfilled or used an OTMA," he added.
Large-scale crude-by-rail shipments were thought to be a temporary business when they began in
the late 2000s with the onset of the shale drilling boom. Many analysts figured that pipelines
would quickly replace their rolling counterparts in expanding oil patches such as North Dakota's
Bakken Shale formation.
233
Even as more pipeline capacity arrived, rail shipments still accounted for 59 percent of crude oil
leaving North Dakota in November, the most recent data available.
The industry's continued reliance on decades-old, puncture-prone "beer can" DOT-111 tank cars
hasn't sat well with safety advocates and environmentalists.
"There is clearly an imminent hazard posed by these unit trains and DOT-111 tank cars, yet the
DOT has dragged its feet on the one thing it could do to protect public health and safety, which is
to ban DOT-111 cars immediately," said Devorah Ancel, an attorney with the Sierra Club.
The DOT has stopped short of ordering a ban on DOT-111s but has recommended avoiding them
"to the extent reasonably practicable" (EnergyWire, May 8).
That May 7 safety advisory served as another reminder to crude-by-rail players: Meeting but not
exceeding DOT standards may not be enough to earn a safe reputation.
The rail industry has sought to one-up DOT's base-line tank car rules in the past. In 2011, after
two decades of warnings from NTSB officials, a deadly ethanol train crash involving DOT-111s
drove the industry to adopt a new, voluntary car design in advance of formal rulemaking.
Since then, tens of thousands of tougher CPC-1232 tank cars have hit the tracks, with many
refineries and oil traders phasing out their older fleets in an attempt to burnish their safety
practices.
The cars that dripped oil across Washington last month were built to this higher standard,
according to Tesoro, which no longer includes older DOT-111s in its fleet.
Tesoro, which obtained one-time movement approvals for the 14 tank cars after they were
initially sidelined from the leaks, said it had since removed the entire impacted train from
service.
"Once these cars arrived at our Anacortes facility they were offloaded, inspected and removed
from service," Tesoro spokeswoman Tina Barbee said in an email. "Additionally, we proactively
removed the cars in our fleet that were determined to be of the same build group even though the
cars were not found leaking or defective. These cars will remain out of service pending
maintenance work."
But despite DOT's misgivings and safety warnings dating back to 1991, DOT-111 tank cars are
still the default choice for many crude shippers. After all, even lightly dented DOT-111s are
automatically considered safe to transport under the one-time movement approval process.
"Our intention here is to not do something that's unsafe, you know," said Robert Fronczak,
assistant vice president for environment and hazardous materials for the Association of American
Railroads, in a 2011 meeting with federal rail regulators. "I think we're trying to identify things
234
that are clearly fairly minor and, you know, having the ability to move some of these cars to the
closest repair locations is probably not such a bad idea."
Several rail worker unions have been more skeptical in comments to the agency on the issue of
one-time approvals to move damaged rail cars. Railroads and shippers will pressure the agency to
accelerate the approval process, warned the group, which included the United Transportation
Union, in its letter. "Such acceleration will undoubtedly diminish the level of detail and due
diligence now afforded each request, resulting in an increased probability of unintended
consequences such as fire, explosion, or chemical exposure."
The show must go on
Why don't railroads in North Dakota's Bakken, such as BNSF Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific
Railway Ltd., simply refuse to move a shipper's older, riskier DOT-111s full of crude?
The short answer: It's illegal.
As long as a DOT-111 is properly packaged, common carrier laws leave railroads no choice but
to move the tank car to its destination.
But damaged cars moving under one-time approvals aren't covered by common carrier
obligations. That gives railroads the option of rejecting a car that has been stamped safe by FRA.
Such refusals are rare, officials say. For instance, a railroad might reject an overweight car
approved for one-time movement if the car would have needed to pass over a bridge not rated for
the heavier load.
"In spite of the FRA approvals, we still have the option to reject them if we think it is unsafe to
move in a unit train," said BNSF spokeswoman Roxanne Butler. "The alternative would be to
move it with another means, such as loaded on a flatcar."
There are often few alternatives to moving a damaged tank cars to a repair shop. For one, they're
massive. DOT-111 tank cars are more than 50 feet long and weigh over 250,000 pounds when
fully loaded.
"Every train goes through a series of inspections as it moves from origin to destination, and if a
car has been identified as not being in compliance, it is taken out of service and through the
OTMA process eventually transported to a repair facility," said AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg in
an emailed statement.
Just once -- or twice
Occasionally, one-time approvals play out in two steps: One short movement gets the tank car to
where crude can be offloaded, then a second, typically longer-distance approval lets the empty
tank car reach the repair shop.
235
That's what happened to a DOT-111 tank car hauling crude oil through Buffalo, N.Y., last year.
Tidal Energy Marketing Inc. asked regulators to sign off on the two-time movement of a tank car
with a "defective/leaking bottom outlet valve."
After traveling 10 miles, the car would be unloaded in Hamburg, south of Buffalo, before
embarking on a 1,025-mile journey to a repair shop in Nebraska.
The agency approved its request but warned, "This approval provides no relief from the
regulatory requirement that a hazardous material package offered for transportation retain its
contents during transportation."
In regulatory-speak, that means, "You'd better not leak." It's small comfort to Jean Dickson, a
Buffalo resident who lives feet from train tracks operated by CSX Corp.
She said in a recent interview that she regularly sees crude oil, ethanol and other flammable
liquids and chemicals pass by her home.
"What's really worrying is that there's all kinds of horrible stuff going right through where
everybody lives," she said.
February 18, 2015 - Oil train fireball seen adding pressure for U.S.
safety rule
Feb 18, 2015 | By Thomas Black, Jim Snyder
(Bloomberg) -- Video images of a fireball billowing from the wreckage of a derailed train hauling
Bakken crude are adding to pressure on federal regulators to act on new safety standards for oil
shipments.
While there were no fatalities in the CSX Corp. accident in rural West Virginia on Monday, the
footage of flames and smoke rekindles public alarm over the prospect of tank cars rumbling
through urban areas, according to a former U.S. Transportation Department official and a railroad
consultant.
“It weakens the railroad’s and the industry’s ability to argue on the merits” to shape any
government decision, Brigham McCown, a former chief of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, said by phone Tuesday. “In Washington, D.C., perception is reality.
Railroads have to get a handle on what’s causing these derailments and they have to fix it.”
The Transportation Department missed a target to produce comprehensive rules for crude safety
by the end of 2014 amid lobbying from railroads, oil producers and tank-car owners and makers.
236
Now, the final regulations will be crafted amid fresh visual reminders about the flammability of
Bakken crude, which often moves by rail because of a lack pipeline connections.
“It looks terrible. From a momentum issue, it’s not good news,” said Anthony Hatch, a former
Wall Street railroad analyst and the founder of ABH Consulting in New York. “It brings that
debate back to the front page.”
Canada Accident
Monday’s derailment was the second in North America in less than 48 hours. Seven crude cars on
a Canadian National Railway Co. train caught fire late Saturday near Gogama, Ontario, and the
company’s main line remained blocked Tuesday, according to the Via Rail Canada passenger
service.
One difference between the crashes: The Canadian crash occurred just before midnight in a
remote area, while the West Virginia derailment came in daylight less than 30 miles (48
kilometers) from the state capital, Charleston.
“This accident is another reminder of the need to improve the safety of transporting hazardous
materials by rail,” Christopher Hart, acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety
Board, said in an e-mailed statement. “If we identify any new safety concerns as a result of this
derailment, the board will act expeditiously to issue new safety recommendations.”
U.S. Timeline
May is the new target to complete U.S. rulemaking, according to the Transportation Department,
which has delayed regulations that Secretary Anthony Foxx once said he wanted in place before
the end of 2014. U.S. and Canadian authorities began discussing oil-train upgrades after
derailments including the 2013 accident that killed 47 people in Quebec.
“The federal government should not delay further,” Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the top Democrat
on the House Transportation Committee, said Tuesday in a statement. “It must issue the new
rules for safer rail tank cars as soon as possible.”
In Monday’s crash, residents near the town of Mount Carbon were forced to flee their homes in
frigid weather and leaking crude oil threatened the water supply from the Kanawha River. Ten
months ago, a CSX train carrying Bakken crude derailed in downtown Lynchburg, Virginia,
catching fire and spilling crude in the James River.
One person was treated for possible respiratory problems, according to CSX, the largest U.S.
Eastern railroad. CSX said the cause remains under investigation. CSX fell 0.6 percent to $35.85
at the close in New York.
‘Real Concern’
237
For New York State Assemblyman Phillip Steck, Monday’s derailment offered a reminder about
the danger from oil trains traversing his densely populated upstate district near Albany.
“A fireball like that could destroy the whole community,” Steck said. “It’s a real concern.”
Oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota needs to be processed at the production
site to remove the volatile chemicals that make it so explosive, said Steck, a Democrat. Such a
step would go beyond the U.S. rules now under discussion, which center on strengthening the
cars carrying the crude.
According to the original Transportation Department proposal in July, tank cars would have to be
replaced or significantly modified within two years. Tank-car owners objected, saying the
industry lacked the factory capacity to meet such an aggressive timetable.
Longer Upgrades?
Those owners would have years longer to refresh their fleets under a revised Transportation
Department proposal that has been sent to the White House for review but which hasn’t been
made public, people familiar with the matter have said.
The cars seen by investigators to be the most vulnerable to rupture, known as DoT-111s, would
face the first deadlines for retrofits. Newer cars known as CPC-1232s, which the industry
voluntarily agreed to build in late 2011 in response to safety concerns, would be in use for years
longer, according to people familiar with the draft rule sent to the White House.
In West Virginia, the derailed crude train was hauling CPC-1232 cars, according to Jacksonville,
Florida-based CSX.
Monday’s accident also raises questions over whether any tank car is safe enough to withstand a
derailment at speeds of 40 miles per hour or more, said Bob Pickel, a senior vice president of
marketing and sales for National Steel Car, a Canadian railcar maker based in Hamilton, Ontario.
The CSX train had CPC-1232 cars with either an extra steel jacket or were made of half-inch
steel instead of the usual 7/16-inch thickness. Those cars are supposed to only have a 4.6 percent
chance of spilling 100 gallons or more in an accident compared with older models that have a 20
percent release rate, according to a study by the Association of American Railroads.
February 19, 2015 - Getting on Board the Regulatory Train
by Joseph Keefe
Feb 19, 2015, 1:46PM EST
238
Rail transport activists, analysts and environmentalists get a real taste of what the waterfront has
endured for decades. They’ll just have to get in line with the rest of us.
This week finds the collective domestic oil industry wringing its hands about the latest in a series
of serious oil transport train casualties. This time, on Monday, the news involved a crudecarrying train that derailed in West Virginia, complete with more than one dozen tank cars afire
and necessitating the evacuation of nearby towns. Just before that, another train in Canada
consisting of about 100 tank cars carrying crude oil derailed in remote Ontario and suffered a
similar fate. Both events naturally caught the attention of environmental and safety activists and
oil industry analysts.
Also this week, Reuters analyst John Kemp penned a column that chronicled the “high-stakes
risks” that the use of rail for crude oil transport represents. First lamenting the 591 (now 593)
days that have passed since a train high profile crude train derailed and devastated a small town
in Quebec, Kemp also correctly points out that in that time, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) has failed to finalize new safety rules for tank cars and operational
standards for trains carrying flammable liquids. And yet, what we see here is nothing new for the
domestic waterfront. Frankly, it is just a familiar way of life.
Eventually, some say it could take six years or more for regulators to finalize and implement the
new standards. Kemp characterizes that lack of progress as “an astonishing example of regulatory
failure.” And while I don’t think too many would argue with him on that score, looking out on
the water, these kinds of rulemakings can span decades. Take, for example, ballast water
management and/or the so-called subchapter “M” towboat rules.
The late Tip O’Neill, a Massachusetts Congressman and long time Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives, coined the now familiar phrase, “All politics is local.” He could easily been
talking about ballast water treatment standards since we have at least 15 Balkanized state
statutes, a pending Coast Guard standard and another issued by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) that has yet to be globally ratified because not enough tonnage and/or flag
states have signed up for it. And, yet, it was more than ten years ago when the Commander of the
U.S. Coast Guard’s Ninth District (Great Lakes) told me that “there was no higher priority in the
Coast Guard’s pending regulatory agenda than the ballast water treatment rules.” Arguably, we
haven’t gotten very far since then.
The effort to implement the subchapter M towboat rules, intended to address a previously
uninspected subset of inland vessels, has also languished for more than a decade. Championed by
unprecedented industry support and guidance from the American Waterways Operators, the
national advocate for the U.S. tugboat, towboat and barge industry, there is probably no other
rulemaking in play that has more support from the folks it will eventually oversee. Even this
can’t speed its final rule along, apparently. Industry stakeholders had high hopes that the rule
would be signed off on by former Commandant ADM Bob Papp before he departed last year. No
such luck. And, current Coast Guard leadership won’t give a timetable under ADM Zukunft’s
tenure. And, so it goes.
239
On the other hand, it seems like if you REALLY want to get something done, you can do an end
run around the U.S. Coast Guard. Such was the case with the ruling on the small passenger vessel
out of water survival craft. The nation’s 25th Commandant, at a recent West Coast speech,
distanced himself and the Coast Guard from pending federal legislation that would change the
equipment and the methods that small passenger vessels would be required to handle rescue
situations underway. The proposed new rules, which he said had circumvented the Coast Guard,
could cost vessel operators hundreds of thousands of dollars for new, out of water survival craft.
Beyond this, the proposed regulations – a hot button issue for PVA stakeholders – wouldn’t
necessarily improve safety.
Reuters also points out that “serious incidents involving crude-carrying trains posing a significant
threat to life, property and the environment are occurring on average once every seven weeks.”
And, they list (between 2006 and April 2014) 16 significant accidents involving high-hazard
trains carrying crude oil or ethanol, involving 281 tank cars derailed and nearly 5 million gallons
of crude or ethanol released, as well as 48 fatalities, according to the U.S. National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
John Kemp says, “No other industry would be allowed to tolerate such an appalling safety
record.” He’s right.
The solution, say shippers and rail advocates alike, is to phase out the current rail cars in use and
replace them with modern versions that carry the same safety features as those commonly found
on today’s inland barges and larger tankships. Actually, it isn’t rocket science. And the answer is
even simpler: move the cargoes onto the water as soon as is possible – either through the inland
river system or the Great Lakes. At this point, removing rail completely from the equation isn’t
altogether possible, but minimizing its role in the transport mix certainly is.
When I hear about a train traveling through West Virginia on its way to Hampton Roads, VA,
laden with crude oil, no one can tell me that there isn’t a river, canal or waterway nearby that
could do the trick, just as well, a lot more safely and probably with less expense. Beyond this,
The American Waterways Operators says that just one 15-barge tow takes the place of 216 rail
cars and six locomotives, or more than a thousand semi-tractor trailers. Think of the congestion
that would be eliminated. Add to that the reduction in stack emissions represented by barge
transport when compared to its modal cousins in rail, and one has to wonder what industry and
the government is waiting for.
The latest casualties have reignited the debate about the safety of these shipments, especially
given the perceived heightened flammability of the light North Dakota Bakken shale oil and the
dated designs of older tankcars. In reality, imported crude oils with characteristics every bit as
dangerous as the Bakken blend have been safely transported on the nation’s waterways for
decades.
As rail safety and environmental advocates clamor for quick reforms, they (understandably) grow
increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress. I have some advice for them: they can get in line
with the rest of us on the waterfront, or better yet, they can refocus their collective energies on
240
something smarter: moving the crude oil off the rails and onto to the water (not in it). – MarPro.
***
Joseph Keefe is the lead commentator of MaritimeProfessional.com. Additionally, he is Editor of
both Maritime Professional and MarineNews print magazines. He can be reached at
[email protected] or at [email protected]. MaritimeProfessional.com is
the largest business networking site devoted to the marine industry. Each day thousands of
industry professionals around the world log on to network, connect, and communicate.
February 17, 2015 - Pipeline, trucks, trains or boats all spill crude
oil
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
We notice developments every day in alternative means of transportation, from hybrid to plug-in
hybrids to straight electric cars (Apple most recently mentioned) to hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
While alternative energy for transportation is showing promise, better batteries and breakthrough
technology announced on a regular basis, most of us are going to be dependent on oil for many
years to come.
That raises the question: Where do we get it? At what price?
Oil prices are about half what they were a year ago, thanks to OPEC's reluctance to cut
production, some say in order to make shale-oil operations economically unviable.
The Rebublican-controlled Congress has sent legislation to President Obama to build the rest of
the Keystone XL pipeline, including a portion through the Nebraska Sandhills, but Obama has
vowed to veto the legislation, ostensibly because it would derail the review process, but more
likely because his environmental activist friends oppose any type of oil development.
The diluted bitumen that is piped from the shale oil fields is a nasty substance, that can do
serious harm to rivers and water supplies if it is spilled, but not building the Keystone XL doesn't
mean spills won't happen.
In fact, trends indicate they will happen more.
Tuesday, a crude oil train derailed in a snowstorm in West Virginia, forcing nearaby municipal
water treatment plants to shut down.
In the United States, 70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped by pipeline, 23
percent on tankers and barges over water, 4 percent by truck and 3 percent by rail.
It's cheaper to ship oil by pipeline, about $5 a barrel, than by train, $10 to $15, but there are a lot
241
more miles of track in the United States than there are pipelines.
But according to industry sources, more crude oil was spilled in railroad accidents in 2013 than
was spilled in the previous 37 years. In Canada, 1.5 million gallons of oil was spilled in a single
day in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and 47 people were killed. That shipment originated in North
Dakota.
But railroads, which have taken steps to reduce the danger of oil spills, are safe compared to
trucks, which spilled about 225 barrels of oil per billion-ton-miles in 2002 through 2007.
Pipelines, like any means of transportation, are far from perfect -- the U.S. Department of
Transportation says about 280 "significant" pipeline spills of all types occur each year.
"Significant" means there is a fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization or more than
$50,000 (in 1984 dollars) in damage.
The decision of whether or not to build the Keystone XL pipeline or rely on other, more
dangerous means of transportation, should be based on facts and divorced from emotional
arguments.
A reference to total pipeline spills was corrected from an earlier version which indicated the
figure was crude oil pipelines; it was actually pipelines of all types.
February 26, 2015 - Who’s to Blame for the Exploding Oil Trains?
Railroads and oil companies bicker over the cost of new rules
by Jim SnyderMatthew Philips 1:45 PM CST February 26, 2015
A week after a CSX train hauling crude oil derailed and exploded 30 miles southeast of
Charleston, W.Va., on Feb. 16, its mangled, charred tank cars were still being hauled from the
crash site. Of the 27 cars that derailed, 19 had been engulfed in flames. The wreckage burned for
almost three days. “It’s amazing no one was killed,” says John Whitt, whose home is one of a
handful clustered near the crash site, along the banks of the Kanawha River. Some were within
30 yards of the site. One home was destroyed.
Exploding oil trains—this was only the latest in a series—have emerged as a dangerous side
effect of the U.S. energy boom. A lack of pipelines connecting new fields in North Dakota and
Texas to refineries and shipping terminals has led to an almost 5,000 percent increase in the
amount of oil moved by trains since 2009. Much of it is carried in tank cars designed a halfcentury ago that regulators have long deemed inadequate for hauling the highly flammable types
of crude coming out of North Dakota.
The West Virginia accident came less than a month after the U.S. Department of Transportation
sent a proposal for new safety standards to the White House for approval. The rules were
supposed to have been submitted at the end of last year but were delayed amid lobbying from
railroads, oil producers, and tank car manufacturers. Part of the problem has been crafting
242
regulation that’s broad enough to address a range of safety issues—including speed limits,
braking systems, and track maintenance—but that can also withstand potential legal challenges
from the affected industries. “All the stakeholders have their opinions, and they are aggressive in
protecting their turf,” says Joe Szabo, who stepped down as head of the Federal Railroad
Administration in January.
The type of tanker involved in the West Virginia incident has been built since 2011. Outfitted
with a reinforced body and tougher valves, to keep oil from leaking during a wreck, the CPC1232 was supposed to be an improvement on the tank car designed in the 1960s that’s still
prevalent on the tracks today.
The Transportation Department is pressing the industry to make further improvements. Under the
latest version of the draft regulation, tank cars would have to have even thicker shells and better
brakes and valves. Even then, analysts say, risks will remain. “You could make tank cars
resemble Army tanks, and it still isn’t going to stop accidents,” says Brigham McCown, a former
administrator at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Last summer the
Transportation Department predicted that trains hauling crude or ethanol could derail 10 times a
year over the next 20 years, causing $4.5 billion in damage.
$13.6b Cost of new oil tank car regulations in their first year, as projected by a rail industry trade
group
Despite those forecasts, the industry’s lobbyists appear to have extracted some concessions. U.S.
regulators had initially called for a two-year phaseout of oil tank cars—both the old and the
improved version. The revised proposal maintains the phaseout schedule for the old cars but
extends the deadline for some of the newer tankers to as long as a decade, according to three
people familiar with the document who weren’t authorized to speak on the record. Executives
from the Railway Supply Institute, a trade group representing companies that make tank cars,
argued there isn’t enough manufacturing capacity to turn over the fleet in a couple of years. The
institute’s president, Tom Simpson, says too aggressive a deadline would force oil producers to
dial down production or move more of their crude in trucks, which come with their own safety
hazards: “The option is we don’t have it, or we use highways.”
Sarah Feinberg, the acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, says the rulemaking process has been slow because of the need to craft comprehensive regulations that go
beyond mandating new tank cars. “A new tank car is not a silver bullet,” she says. “If the product
you put into transport is safer, then a lot of these other issues are easier to solve.”
Under regulations adopted last year, oil companies in North Dakota will have to remove volatile
gases such as propane from their crude before pumping it into a rail car, starting in April.
According to the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, that will raise costs by an
estimated 10¢ per barrel for the energy industry, which says it’s already bearing too much of the
burden of tougher regulation.
Based on the draft proposed last summer, the Railway Supply Institute has estimated the new
243
safety requirements for tank cars would add about $13.6 billion in shipping costs in the first year;
oil companies and refiners anticipate they will foot some of the tab in the form of higher lease
rates for rail cars. “It’s time we focused attention on the root cause of the problem and get the
railroads to keep their trains on the tracks,” says Charlie Drevna, president of the American Fuel
& Petrochemical Manufacturers.
It will likely be months before the cause of the West Virginia crash is known. One thing that
doesn’t appear to be an issue is speed. The train was traveling at only 33 mph, below the speed
limit of 50 mph. Jim Hall, former National Transportation Safety Board chairman, would like to
see the trains go even slower. “We don’t have short-term adequate protection to prevent these
events other than slowing the trains down,” he says.
February 23, 2015 - Shell's Washington rail project faces lengthy
delay
By Kristen Hays
HOUSTON Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:09pm EST
(Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell's proposed crude-by-rail project in Washington state has been put
on hold pending environmental review, just days after a pair of oil train derailments caused huge
fires in Canada and West Virginia.
A Skagit County Office of Land Use Hearings examiner ruled Shell's proposal must undergo a
full environmental review, which can take a year or more.
Shell's competitors have been railing in U.S. crudes since 2012 to displace more costly imports
and declining Alaskan oil. But a spate of derailments and crashes since 2013 has raised safety
questions, particularly with North Dakota Bakken crude.
"Catastrophes have occurred elsewhere. No one doubts that such a thing could occur here," the
examiner, Wick Dufford, wrote in the order issued Monday.
Last week a CSX Corp train derailed in Mount Carbon, West Virginia, causing an explosion that
set 19 cars ablaze and destroyed a house. Two days before that a Canadian National Railway Co
train derailed in remote northern Ontario, spilling oil and causing several cars to burn.
The worst accident by far was in July 2013 when a runaway train carrying Bakken crude crashed
and exploded in a small Quebec town, killing 47 people.
Shell said the proposal to move 70,000 barrels per day of inland U.S. crude is critical for its
145,000 bpd refinery in Anacortes, and the company has participated in an "exhaustive"
permitting process for more than two years.
Nearly a year ago the county determined that Shell's project would not require a full review, and
244
several environmental organizations appealed.
"We respect the hearing examiner’s decision and are determined to stay the course in this
process," Shell said.
Tesoro Corp started railing Bakken crude to its 120,000 bpd refinery next to Shell's plant in 2012.
BP Plc, Trailstone's U.S. Oil & Refining and Phillips 66 followed suit in 2013 and 2014.
Shell was the last of the state's refiners to seek crude-by-rail permits in late 2013. Opponents
were largely unaware of the other projects during the permitting phases, but Shell's project caught
their attention.
Dufford wrote that none of the previous approvals considered the "whole Northwest Washington
scene."
"Unquestionably, the potential magnitude and duration of environmental and human harm from
oil train operations in Northwest Washington could be very great," he wrote.
(Reporting by Kristen Hays; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
March 2, 2015 -Inspector General Auditing FRA's Railroad Bridge
Safety Oversight
Complying with the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, FRA issued a rule in 2010 that
requires railroad track owners to implement bridge management programs and perform bridge
inspections at least annually.
DOT's Office of Inspector General is launching an audit of the Federal Railroad Administration's
oversight of railroad bridge safety. The OIG announcement stated that FRA records show during
the past 10 years, 24 accidents caused by the misalignment or failure of railroad bridges resulted
in 392 injuries. This audit aims to assess how well FRA is overseeing compliance with a its 2010
rule, issued in response to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, that requires railroad track
owners to implement bridge management programs that address a variety of requirements,
including performing bridge inspections at least annually and protecting bridges from overweight
and oversize loads.
Mitchell Behm, assistant inspector general for Surface Transportation Audits, signed the
announcement of the audit that was issued to FRA's administrator.
It cites the 24 train accidents caused by misalignment or failure of railroad bridges and notes that
in recent years, railroad traffic has increased significantly, including the transport of hazardous
materials such as crude oil. "Due to the potential destructive effects of bridge failures, we are
initiating an audit of FRA's oversight of railroad bridge safety. Our objective is to assess FRA's
oversight for ensuring that track owners' bridge management programs comply with FRA's rule
245
on bridge safety standards.
We plan to begin this audit in March 2015, and will contact your audit liaison to schedule an
entrance conference," it states.
March 2, 2015 - Terrorism poses a greater risk to railways than
derailments: CP’s Hunter Harrison
Kristine Owram | March 2, 2015 | Last Updated: Mar 2 5:45 PM ET
Terrorism poses a greater risk to railways and the communities they pass through than
derailments do, and notifying public officials of dangerous-goods shipments may actually
increase the risk of attacks, says the CEO of Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.
“I will notify every public official every day of what’s on that train if they want to know it,”
Hunter Harrison said Monday in a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto.
“But if you want to give someone the opportunity to break that custody chain and look at the list
and say, ‘Here’s what that car’s got in it and here’s the location and here’s all the bad things I
could do’ — I don’t think we want that.”
Mr. Harrison told reporters after his speech that he fears terrorism more than derailments
“because it can be planned to do the worst possible damage.”
Following the Lac-Mégantic disaster in 2013, Transport Canada introduced new regulations that
require Class 1 railways, including CP and Canadian National Railway Co., to provide a
quarterly breakdown of the nature and volume of dangerous goods they transport through each
municipality. Some critics have called for even more disclosure.
Mr. Harrison said he’s happy to divulge information about shipments of dangerous goods, but
warned that it could fall into the wrong hands.
He pointed to Toronto and Chicago as examples of major cities that are at risk of rail-related
accidents or terrorist attacks.
“God forbid, if some third party or terrorist wants to do havoc with Chicago, that’s a great way to
do it,” he said, referring to the long crude trains that often travel through the middle of the city.
“It’s a serious situation that we need to address and get on with, but the lobbying factor is awful
powerful in Washington and Ottawa both, and it’s hard to get those changes done in a timely
fashion.”
Mr. Harrison has long been an outspoken critic of government intervention in the railway
industry, arguing that regulation often does more harm than good.
246
In particular, he has accused Ottawa of unfairly singling out the railroads over the movement of
grain.
Transport Canada introduced minimum grain-hauling requirements a year ago and extended them
at the beginning of December. CP was fined $50,000 for failing to meet the minimum volume
over the Labour Day weekend, which Mr. Harrison blamed on the holiday shutdown at the Port
of Vancouver.
He acknowledged that $50,000 isn’t much for a railway that generated $6.62 billion in revenue
last year, but said he plans to fight the fine “on principle.”
“We’ll pay that fine when the ultimate judge says to pay it,” he said to laughter from the
audience.
Mr. Harrison argued that the grain regulations are at odds with speed limits that have been
imposed on trains carrying dangerous goods like crude oil.
“We slow crude down, we slow the grain pipeline down,” he said. “All this is intermixed and
there’s not an easy solution.”
Mr. Harrison also touched on the recent two-day strike by the railway’s locomotive engineers and
conductors, saying the company has “failed miserably” in dealing with its labour issues but
hasn’t gotten any support from Ottawa or Washington either.
He said CP’s management was able to move 60% of customers’ tonnage during the strike over
the Family Day weekend.
“Next time, we’re going to operate 100% with management employees,” he said.
“I certainly recognize and respect labour’s right to strike, but at the same time I think we ought to
have a right to operate our company.”
Aging Track Caused CN Fiery Derailment
Deteriorating rail infrastructure caused 13 Canadian National Railway tank cars to derail and
explode in a fireball October 19, 2013 in Gainford, Alberta (Edmonton Journal). The
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada recently released its investigative report on the
accident that resulted in a local state of emergency and evacuation of 106 nearby homes. 138
people were evacuated for 4 days and one house was damaged by the intense heat.
Four tank cars loaded with crude oil and 9 pressurized tank cars loaded with liquefied petroleum
gas (propane) fell off CN’s mainline in a curved section of the tracks. Two of the propane tank
cars broke open and caught fire, causing a huge explosion that lit up the night sky. A third tank
car released propane from its safety valve, which ignited.
TSB investigators found 16 transverse cracks in old rails, one of which actually split the track.
The high (outside) rail in the track curve that broke was marked by visible surface cracks and
247
chunks of rail falling out, said George Fowler, a TSB investigator. The track, made in the 1970s,
was due for replacement. The low (inside) rail in the curve had been replaced in March 2013. The
new rail sat taller than the old worn rail it replaced, which put more pressure and stress on the
older high rail that also needed replacement. Replacing only the low rail “obviously…wasn’t the
right decision based on the derailment” said Fowler. “Railroads are good businesses. They are not
going to replace an asset before they have to”, Fowler continued.
The TSB’s comments certainly highlight one of the main causes of derailments and other
accidents, namely that railway corporations let their rail infrastructure deteriorate to the point
where it falls apart.
If regular and adequate safety monitoring and maintenance were conducted, the number of
derailments would be significantly lower; however, adequate monitoring and maintenance cost
money and time, which affects the bottom line of railway companies like Canadian National
Railway. Transport Canada has also been repeatedly criticized by the TSB and rail safety experts
for inadequate oversight of companies’ rail safety programs. In many cases, federal legislation
already exists to address rail safety issues; unfortunately, the legislation is poorly enforced by the
federal government. In other cases, new legislation is required to address shortfalls in rail safety
measures.
Read CN Railway Derailments, Other Accidents and Incidents for hundreds of additional
examples of CN derailments, spills, explosions and fires.
March 4, 2015 - New bills seek to strengthen crude-by-rail safety,
extend short-line tax credit
At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing yesterday, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
announced plans to introduce legislation that would establish new, stronger safety standards for
trains hauling crude oil.
During the hearing, Cantwell told U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx that she didn’t
think the U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) proposed tank-car safety rule would be
sufficient and that legislation would be necessary to further strengthen crude-by-rail safety. The
proposed rule would phase out older DOT-111 tank cars over several years until late 2017.
"I want to be clear and on the record: I will be introducing legislation to support a thicker hull
and quicker phase-out than what is currently proposed,” Cantwell said in a press release. "We are
not moving fast enough."
Cantwell also asked Foxx to explain the timeline for the USDOT’s proposed rule, and he
explained the department expects to finalize new standards in May for tank cars hauling
flammable materials, such as crude oil and ethanol.
248
"We are in the process of working with the [Office of Management and Budget] and the
administration on moving that rule," Foxx said. "I would be getting ahead of myself and OMB by
putting a tight deadline on it. There is a high level of urgency on it."
Washington is the fifth-largest refining state and a destination for increasing quantities of crudeby-rail from North Dakota shale fields, according to Cantwell's office. The amount of crude
shipped by rail through the state has increased from none in 2011 to 714 million gallons in 2013.
Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) yesterday introduced
the Short Line Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act of 2015, which would extend the
Section 45G short-line tax credit that expired at 2014's end.
The bill, which garnered six co-sponsors, is a companion to H.R. 721 that was introduced Feb. 4
by U.S. Reps. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and Dan
Lipinski (D-Ill.). The bills propose to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and
extend the track credit through 2015, and perhaps beyond. The Section 45G provision enables
regionals and short lines to claim a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar invested in track
rehabilitation, up to a cap equal to $3,500 times their total track miles.
"Small railroads provide a critical service to communities and businesses across Oregon, and this
bill means continued investment in important infrastructure," said Wyden, the top Democrat on
the Senate Finance Committee, in a press release. "The short line rail credit empowers railroads
to make investments in the first and last mile of what is often a transcontinental journey for
goods destined for factories, grain elevators, mills and other vital parts of the economy."
Oregon is home to 15 regionals and short lines that operate 1,292 miles of track, more than half
of all trackage in the state.
"As highways … become more and more congested, we have a choice to make as a nation. By
allowing us to maximize our investment in infrastructure, the short line tax credit provides a
private solution to our transportation challenges and it improves the global competitiveness of
rail customers, all while improving our environment and preserving our highway infrastructure,"
said Jerry Vest, assistant vice president of Oregon short lines the Portland & Western and Central
Oregon & Pacific railroads.
March 5, 2015 - Obama admin balked at improving standards for
gas in oil ‘bomb trains’ – report
Published time: March 05, 2015 23:11
A federal standard for regulating explosive gas in oil-transporting trains was rejected in the
higher levels of the White House, according to a new report. It instead opted to allow new
249
industry-backed regulations crafted in North Dakota to suffice.
In September 2014, according to a Reuters exclusive report, Anthony Foxx, secretary of the US
Department of Transportation, took to the White House to express concern over the increasing
“bomb train” derailment disasters occurring amid the oil and gas boom in places such as the
Bakken Shale region around North Dakota.
Foxx was specifically focused on new rules for “light ends,” an industrial term for the mixture of
combustible gas that is a high risk for DOT-111 crude-oil tanker trains, which haul 60 percent of
the 1.2 million barrels of oil produced daily just in North Dakota.
For example, in 2013, high vapor pressure in an oil tanker coming from the Bakken exploded in
Lac-Megantic, Quebec, causing the runaway train to kill 47 people.
Reuters reported that the Transportation Dept. had crafted an oil-train safety plan in July that
aimed to heighten safety protocol of DOT-111 tanker trains, including tougher shells, slower
deliveries, and better braking system requirements. Yet limiting the volatile gas cocktail was not
part of the plan.
The proposal was presented to White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, but the Obama
administration ultimately decided to keep away, allowing a state rule approved in late 2014 in
North Dakota to take hold.
"The department had already identified issues with the characteristics of the crude oil, including
vapor pressure, and had developed potential strategies related to the overall improvement and
safety of the transport of the product and how the industry could treat it," a White House official
source told Reuters.
"Following the meeting, the Department of Transportation supported North Dakota on treatment
of crude oil in the field," the White House official added.
The North Dakota rule, however, has been panned by critics of current industrial practices. The
measure’s goal “is to produce crude oil that does not exceed a vapor pressure of 13.7 pounds per
square inch (psi),” billed as a way to limit the potential for explosions.
But, as pointed out by DeSmogBlog, the new psi standard “will permit oil that is significantly
more volatile than the oil in the Lac-Megantic disaster to continue to be shipped by rail.”
Meanwhile, based on even industry (and regulator) crafted reports, most oil tested recently in the
Bakken region already falls short of 13.7 psi, North Dakota’s new standard that will take effect
next month.
In fact, North Dakota State Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms has told the Star Tribune that
“about 80 percent of North Dakota crude already falls well below the proposed standard.”
In addition, the state’s new rules do not strengthen vapor pressure testing standards, as they only
call for “sufficiently trained” oil industry employees to test quarterly, eschewing an earlier
250
proposal for independent lab testing.
The new rules also indicated that state regulators have allowed companies to ship oil that
contains high amounts of valuable, yet dangerous naturally-occurring gas liquids like butane.
These components significantly increase the likelihood of an explosion.
Recent oil spills from train derailments, like one that occurred in West Virginia last month, have
underscored the risks that come with the current oil and gas boom in North America.
Within the last two years, there have been at least 11 major derailments in the US and Canada
that involved trains carrying immense amounts of oil, according to a December 2014 report by
the US Congressional Research Service.
From 2006 to April 2014, there were 16 high-profile accidents involving “high-hazard” trains
carrying crude or ethanol, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board. In all, 281
tank cars have derailed, spilling nearly 5 million gallons of crude or ethanol, all resulting in 48
fatalities, Reuters reported.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, DOT-111 tank cars that carry crude and
ethanol are not adequately equipped to carry flammable materials, and there is no requirement for
the cars to have thermal protection against fire hazards.
Efforts to address shipment safety are wrapped up in a fight over whether crude should be
considered highly flammable or not, in addition to the questions over the future of DOT-111 cars.
Liability issues have also hampered safety. Currently, common-carrier railroads must accept any
cars that are of an approved design – such as the DOT-111 – all while they must assume the risk.
Shippers, on the other hand, are free of liability burdens.
In addition to train derailments that have felled toxic contaminants, there has been an uptick so
far this year in other energy-development disasters, as RT has reported.
In North Dakota, three millions of gallons of saltwater brine, a byproduct of hydraulic fracking,
spilled in January from a ruptured pipeline near the Missouri River. A line in West Virginia
transporting ethane exploded, and 40,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River from a
ruptured pipeline in Montana. A natural gas pipeline exploded in Mississippi, and a second North
Dakota incident set loose 20,000 gallons of brine.
March 5, 2015 - Freight train carrying crude oil derails near Illinois
city
The Associated Press March 5, 2015
(Reuters) -
251
A BNSF Railway [BNISF.UL] train loaded with crude oil derailed and caught fire on Thursday
afternoon in a rural area south of Galena, Illinois, according to local officials and the company.
The incident marks the latest in a series of derailments in North America and the third in three
weeks involving trains hauling crude oil, which has put a heightened focus on rail safety.
Dark smoke was seen for miles around the crash site, and the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency told local WREX.com that two of the cars were potentially on fire.
The train with 105 loaded cars - 103 of them carrying crude oil - derailed around 1:20 p.m. CST
(1920 GMT), according to a BNSF statement. The incident occurred on what appears to be a
major rail line alongside the Mississippi River that handles as many as 50 oil-trains a week, one
official said.
"The sky is pretty dark down there, the smoke is pretty black," said Kevin Doyle, whose property
borders the tracks. "If you're standing on the tracks you can throw a rock in the water."
BNSF said there were no reported injuries and no evacuations. The Berkshire Hathaway Inc unit
did not know what had caused the derailment, which occurred about 3 miles outside Galena, a
town of just over 3,000 on the border with Wisconsin.
Eight cars derailed, according to Galena City Administrator Mark Moran, six of which had
tumbled onto their side. He said emergency responders were called back to Galena as a
precaution, and BNSF responders had taken over control of the site. It was not clear if oil had
spilled from the tank cars.
It was also not immediately clear where the train originated or where it was heading. Chicago,
which is 160 miles east, is a major rail hub for shipments from both North Dakota and Canada's
oil sands. It was unclear if the train's tank cars were older models widely criticized for being
prone to puncture during accidents.
About 40 to 50 oil trains come through the area each week, Jo Daviess County Emergency
Manager Charles Pedersen said. He had said earlier that there was no explosion or fire at the site.
The accident is just the latest involving oil trains in the United States and Canada.
In 2013, 47 people were killed in the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic after a train carrying crude
oil derailed and exploded. The last incident was just three weeks ago.
Last month, a Canadian Pacific Railway freight train derailment in nearby Dubuque, Iowa,
spilled ethanol fuel into the water and set three cars on fire. Dubuque, which is 14 miles to the
north west of Galena, has almost 60,000 inhabitants.
A National Transportation Safety Board spokesman said the federal agency was not investigating
the incident.
252
(Reporting by Edward McAllister and Catherine Ngai; editing by Chris Reese, G Crosse and
Christian Plumb)
Comments (6)
 Railroads are not "politically correct." Noisy, take up a lot is space, valuable land as
well. Obviously you don't want to live next to one. Not saying I'm bearish on
railroads...just saying "in the USA real estate is taken very seriously." So yes...trucks are
far more energy intensive than rail will be (look at how complicated the vehicle is) but
"socially speaking" far more acceptable because they're quieter and "fit in" better.
 Nothing beats a barge of course. Or an actuall ship actually. Use to be in the USA that
was the only transportation the USA had.

 Author’s reply » If you live next to a busy train track, it can be loud and dangerous, but
the miles of track in USA is still way down from the peak in 1930. Railroads have
abandoned many tracks since deregulation in 1980. I live about a mile from the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks. I can hear the train whistle nearly every day. I actually am quite
used to the noise and rather like the sound as it reminds me the company is busy hauling
freight, making money and contributing to our economy.

 Michael, What is your take on the Panama canal widening and its impact to UNP?

 Author’s reply » Chubby, I wrote an article on this very subject about the Panama
Canal widening (the first link below). In my second link below, leadership at UNP said
the railroad will lose 1% to 3% of intermodal traffic when the widening of the Panama
Canal is completed. If that is true, BNSF Railway will likely lose an equal amount. UNP
lost a similar amount in 2002 when dock workers on the West Coast went on strike for a
long time, causing shippers to re-route their goods.

 Author’s reply » Weekly traffic continues to trend down. AAR.org reports, "Total U.S.
weekly rail traffic for the week ending February 28, 2015 was 508,658 carloads and
intermodal units, down 6.7 percent compared with the same week last year. For the week
there were 267,060 carloads, down 7 percent compared with the same week in 2014,
while U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 241,598 containers and trailers, down 6.3
percent compared to 2014."

March 5, 2015 - Yet Another Oil Train Derails, Catches Fire, This
Time in Illinois
Contact: Mollie Matteson (802) 318-1487, [email protected]
Yet Another Oil Train Derails, Catches Fire, This Time in Illinois
Third Fiery Accident in Three Weeks Shows Need for Immediate Major
253
Safety Upgrades for Shipments of Crude by Rail
GALENA, Ill.— An oil train transporting more than 100 cars of highly volatile crude oil derailed
and caught fire today in northwest Illinois near the Mississippi River — the third explosive oil
train accident in three weeks. Billowing columns of dark smoke and fireballs shooting hundreds
of feet into the air were visible this afternoon as at least two tank cars caught fire. Early reports
are that first responders had to pull back from the fire due to the heat and ongoing danger of more
tank cars catching fire and exploding. The incident follows in close succession fiery oil train
derailments in Ontario and West Virginia.
“The only thing more mind-boggling than three such accidents in three weeks is the continued
lack of action by the Obama administration to protect us from these dangerous oil trains,” said
Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The government has
the authority to take immediate action to address this crisis — which puts homes, waters and
wildlife at risk – and yet it has sat back and watched.”
The Center for Biological Diversity recently released a report on the danger of oil trains traveling
tracks throughout the United States. Among the findings were that some 25 million people live
within the one-mile “evacuation zone” of tracks carrying oil trains and that the trains pass
through 34 wildlife refuges and critical habitat for 57 endangered species.
The Illinois accident joins a growing list of devastating oil train derailments over the past two
years.
There has been a more than 40-fold increase in crude oil transport by rail since 2008, but no
significant upgrade in federal safety requirements. Oil transport has increased from virtually
nothing in 2008 to more than 500,000 rail cars of oil in 2014. Billions of gallons of oil pass
through towns and cities ill-equipped to respond to the kinds of explosions and spills that have
been occurring. Millions of gallons of crude oil have been spilled into waterways.
Today’s derailment happened where the Galena River meets the Mississippi River. There are no
reports of injuries or fatalities, or of drinking water intake closures, although there are
communities in the area that draw water from the Mississippi. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe
train included 103 tank cars transporting volatile crude oil from the Bakken oil fields of North
Dakota.
Loaded oil trains on this particular line first must pass through densely populated areas such as
Minneapolis-St. Paul and La-Crosse. The trains also pass through the Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife Refuge, about 50 miles upstream of the derailment site. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Mississippi River corridor “provides productive fish and wildlife
habitat unmatched in the heart of America.”
“There are simply no excuses left for the Obama administration. The fact that these trains are still
moving on the rails is a national travesty,” said Matteson. “The next explosive wreck — and
there will be more, so long as nothing changes — may take lives, burn up a town or level a city
254
business district, and pollute the drinking water of thousands of people. Enough is enough.”
A series of fiery oil-train derailments in the United States and Canada has resulted in lifethreatening explosions and destructive oil spills. The worst was a derailment in Quebec in July
2013 that killed 47 people, forced the evacuation of 2,000 people, and incinerated portions of a
popular tourist town.
Ethanol shipments by rail have also raised safety concerns. On Feb. 4, a train transporting ethanol
derailed along the Mississippi River in Iowa, catching fire and sending an unknown amount of
ethanol into the river.
In February the U.S. Department of Transportation sent new rules governing oil train safety to the
White House for review, prior to public release. However, the proposed rules fail to require
appropriate speed limitations, and it will be at least another two and a half years before the most
dangerous tank cars are phased out of use for the most hazardous cargos. The oil and railroad
industries have lobbied for weaker rules on tank car safety and brake requirements. The
industries also want more time to comply with the new rules.
Yet, without regulations that will effectively prevent derailments and rupture of tank cars, oil
trains will continue to threaten people, drinking water supplies and wildlife, including
endangered species.
The Center has also petitioned for oil trains that include far fewer tank cars and for
comprehensive oil spill response plans for railroads as well as other important federal reforms,
and is also pushing to stop the expansion of projects that will facilitate further increases in crude
by rail.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more
than 825,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and
wild places.
March 5, 2015 - Obama admin balked at improving standards for
gas in oil ‘bomb trains’ – report
Published time: March 05, 2015 23:11
A federal standard for regulating explosive gas in oil-transporting trains was rejected in the
higher levels of the White House, according to a new report. It instead opted to allow new
industry-backed regulations crafted in North Dakota to suffice.
In September 2014, according to a Reuters exclusive report, Anthony Foxx, secretary of the US
Department of Transportation, took to the White House to express concern over the increasing
“bomb train” derailment disasters occurring amid the oil and gas boom in places such as the
Bakken Shale region around North Dakota.
255
Foxx was specifically focused on new rules for “light ends,” an industrial term for the mixture of
combustible gas that is a high risk for DOT-111 crude-oil tanker trains, which haul 60 percent of
the 1.2 million barrels of oil produced daily just in North Dakota.
For example, in 2013, high vapor pressure in an oil tanker coming from the Bakken exploded in
Lac-Megantic, Quebec, causing the runaway train to kill 47 people.
Reuters reported that the Transportation Dept. had crafted an oil-train safety plan in July that
aimed to heighten safety protocol of DOT-111 tanker trains, including tougher shells, slower
deliveries, and better braking system requirements. Yet limiting the volatile gas cocktail was not
part of the plan.
The proposal was presented to White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, but the Obama
administration ultimately decided to keep away, allowing a state rule approved in late 2014 in
North Dakota to take hold.
"The department had already identified issues with the characteristics of the crude oil, including
vapor pressure, and had developed potential strategies related to the overall improvement and
safety of the transport of the product and how the industry could treat it," a White House official
source told Reuters.
"Following the meeting, the Department of Transportation supported North Dakota on treatment
of crude oil in the field," the White House official added.
The North Dakota rule, however, has been panned by critics of current industrial practices. The
measure’s goal “is to produce crude oil that does not exceed a vapor pressure of 13.7 pounds per
square inch (psi),” billed as a way to limit the potential for explosions.
But, as pointed out by DeSmogBlog, the new psi standard “will permit oil that is significantly
more volatile than the oil in the Lac-Megantic disaster to continue to be shipped by rail.”
Meanwhile, based on even industry (and regulator) crafted reports, most oil tested recently in the
Bakken region already falls short of 13.7 psi, North Dakota’s new standard that will take effect
next month.
In fact, North Dakota State Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms has told the Star Tribune that
“about 80 percent of North Dakota crude already falls well below the proposed standard.”
In addition, the state’s new rules do not strengthen vapor pressure testing standards, as they only
call for “sufficiently trained” oil industry employees to test quarterly, eschewing an earlier
proposal for independent lab testing.
The new rules also indicated that state regulators have allowed companies to ship oil that
contains high amounts of valuable, yet dangerous naturally-occurring gas liquids like butane.
These components significantly increase the likelihood of an explosion.
256
Recent oil spills from train derailments, like one that occurred in West Virginia last month, have
underscored the risks that come with the current oil and gas boom in North America.
Within the last two years, there have been at least 11 major derailments in the US and Canada
that involved trains carrying immense amounts of oil, according to a December 2014 report by
the US Congressional Research Service.
From 2006 to April 2014, there were 16 high-profile accidents involving “high-hazard” trains
carrying crude or ethanol, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board. In all, 281
tank cars have derailed, spilling nearly 5 million gallons of crude or ethanol, all resulting in 48
fatalities, Reuters reported.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, DOT-111 tank cars that carry crude and
ethanol are not adequately equipped to carry flammable materials, and there is no requirement for
the cars to have thermal protection against fire hazards.
Efforts to address shipment safety are wrapped up in a fight over whether crude should be
considered highly flammable or not, in addition to the questions over the future of DOT-111 cars.
Liability issues have also hampered safety. Currently, common-carrier railroads must accept any
cars that are of an approved design – such as the DOT-111 – all while they must assume the risk.
Shippers, on the other hand, are free of liability burdens.
In addition to train derailments that have felled toxic contaminants, there has been an uptick so
far this year in other energy-development disasters, as RT has reported.
In North Dakota, three millions of gallons of saltwater brine, a byproduct of hydraulic fracking,
spilled in January from a ruptured pipeline near the Missouri River. A line in West Virginia
transporting ethane exploded, and 40,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River from a
ruptured pipeline in Montana. A natural gas pipeline exploded in Mississippi, and a second North
Dakota incident set loose 20,000 gallons of brine.
March 6, 2015 - Washington state cites crude-by-rail safety
measures
The Washington Department of Ecology on Monday released the results of its Marine and Rail
Oil Transportation Study, which details the potential risks of oil transportation, as well as various
ways to mitigate those risks.
Originally requested by the state Legislature in 2014, the study provides several
recommendations, such as taking steps to enhance emergency response efforts, increasing rail
inspections, and ensuring oil companies and transporters have the means to pay for spills.
257
"When I’m talking to people around the state, one issue people always ask me about is what
we’re going to do to protect our state from the dangers of transporting crude oil," said
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee in a press release. "Increasing numbers of oil trains are coming
through Washington and this is our opportunity to take reasonable and necessary steps to improve
public safety."
Noting the spate of recent train accidents, Department of Ecology officials expressed urgency in
finding and implementing ways to decrease the risks involved with transporting crude by rail.
"Given the recent collisions around the country and in Canada, we can’t afford to be
complacent," said Maia Bellon, the department's director. "We also know of four separate
incidents since December where oil trains were leaking as they traveled through Washington."
March 2015 - 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study
The Governor’s 2014 budget provided one-time funding for Ecology to conduct a Marine and
Rail Oil Transportation Study. The objective of the study is to analyze the risks to public health
and safety, and the environmental impacts associated with the transport of oil in Washington
state.
The study will inform the Spills Program, Governor and the Legislature by focusing on the
movement of oil in marine and inland areas, by vessel, and rail. The study will compile existing
information and determine if there are information gaps in the existing oil transportation system.
If gaps exist, the study will identify ways to address the risk and make public health/safety and
environmental protection recommendations for appropriate federal, state, local agencies, or the
private sector/industry to take appropriate remedial action.
Scope of Study
Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and the Columbia River will be included in the marine portion of the
study. The inland portion of the study will include the entire oil transportation corridor. The study
looks at:
 the current and anticipated transportation pictures for marine and rail.
 the current and anticipated safety pictures for marine and rail.
 any existing gaps.
Based on these findings, the study will inform recommendations for public health, safety and
environmental concerns; statement of safety benefits vs. the cost of implementation;
recommendation for funding programs; and a risk communication strategy.
Draft Study Results
The Draft 2014 Marine & Rail Oil Transportation Study is available.
258
Looking for a summary version of the Draft 2014 Marine & Rail Oil Transportation Study?
Here's the focus sheet.
The 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
Report is available.
Along with Ecology, the study will include stakeholders in the development of the
recommendations, including, but not limited to: Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission; Emergency Management Division; tribes; other federal, state, and local agencies;
informal and formal public and private committees; organizations; industry; and the public at
large focused on the environment, waterway, marine transportation System, and rail and railway
concerns.
The contract is for a facilitator who will work closely with our internal technical team to write
the report and facilitate meetings with a diverse group of stakeholders.
Timeline
 A completed interim report is due to the Governor and Legislature by December 1, 2014.
 A final report is due by March 1, 2015.
Click on the timeline for a larger view.
*The Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation
Study is available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1508010.pdf
WARNING: This report is 570 pages!
259
February 25, 2015 - To stop Big Oil, environmentalists need labor
unions
Winning on Keystone XL and other issues requires thinking about workers’ needs
February 25, 2015 2:00AM ET
by Rebecca Burns @rejburns
In their push to halt construction of the Keystone XL and other pipelines in recent years,
environmentalists have often put a familiar question to labor: Which side are you on? More often
than not, unions have ended up on the other side of the line in the tar sand, backing the oil and
gas industry in its efforts to expand the pipeline and drilling projects that are poised to push us
past the point of carbon no return.
With hard-hit construction and trade workers swayed easily by industry’s promise of jobs, no
matter how short term, the prospects for recruiting labor in the fight against climate change often
look grim.
But given that the workers who drill, mine and frack the earth — often at enormous risk to their
health and safety — are specially poised to shut down these operations, the environmental
movement can’t afford to give up on the idea of a robust blue-green alliance. In order to bring
about such an alliance, however, the movement must offer workers something more than the
distant promise of green jobs.
On Feb. 1, members of the United Steelworkers (USW) launched the first nationwide refinery
strike in more than 30 years, representing a crucial opportunity for environmentalists to stand
alongside workers taking on Big Oil. The work stoppage expanded this week to more than 6,500
workers who have walked off the job at 15 refineries and chemical plants across the country.
The historic labor action is taking aim at the grueling conditions that make refineries among the
most dangerous places to work in the U.S.; workers in the gas and oil industry are more than six
times as likely to die on the job as the average American. In addition to a wage increase, the
USW is fighting for adequate staffing, regulations governing the use of nonunion contractors
who the union says are often inadequately trained and protections against forced overtime and
fatigue in an industry in which workers frequently have 12-hour shifts with no days off for more
than a week at a time.
But that’s not all that’s at stake in the first oil strike in a generation. Many of the hazards workers
face inside plants are shared by communities living outside the fence line, which are
disproportionately low-income African-American and Latino. In 2012 environmental justice
groups filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency for neglecting to safeguard the
health of residents living in the shadow of refineries, which are known to emit at least 20,000
260
tons of toxins such as benzene, cyanide, and formaldehyde into the air each year. Environmental
groups claim that because of flares, chemical releases and other issues caused by outdated
equipment or operating errors, the actual levels of emissions are 10 to 100 times higher than what
industry reports to regulators — which could help explain elevated rates of cancer, asthma and
birth defects among residents who live near oil refineries.
In response, the EPA has proposed new regulations tightening toxin emission limits on refineries
and requiring operators to monitor air pollution at the line separating the plant from residents.
The oil industry, predictably, is fighting the new rules tooth and nail, claiming that they would
place undue burdens and expenses on refinery operators. Refinery workers, meanwhile, are
fighting through their collective bargaining negotiations for many provisions that would advance
the same goals of protecting nearby communities.
In Richmond, California, where a 2012 fire at a Chevron refinery sent 15,000 residents to the
hospital for smoke inhalation and related injuries, USW Local 5 is fighting for a mechanism
known as stop-work authority, which allows workers to shut down operations in the event of a
problem. The union’s position echoes that of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB), which in
January issued a final report concluding that the refinery fire resulted from, among other things, a
“flawed safety culture,” in which employees felt pressured to maintain operations even in the
face of leaks and other serious hazards. The CSB’s recommendations are nonbinding, but the
union has the ability to force changes at the refinery through its contract and on-the-job action.
Where regulators often lack political power or find themselves hamstrung by industry lobbyists,
workers and their unions are often the first line of defense in ensuring community safety as well
as their own.
Working people aren’t going to commit economic suicide in order to advance the enhancement of
the environment. It’s not the type of choice one should be given.
To overcome Big Oil’s strategy of divide and conquer, green groups must rethink what
constitutes an environmental issue to include the health and safety of workers, just as unions
must consider the well-being of communities they live and work in as intrinsic to their interests.
Labor, of course, is not a monolith, and many unions have already taken strong stands against
climate change. A small group, including the National Nurses United, came out in opposition to
the Keystone XL pipeline, and others have lent their numbers to climate marches or
formed partnerships with national environmental groups. In the Bay Area, blue-green alliances
formed in the wake of Richmond’s refinery fire were on display this month when members of
Communities for a Better Environment and the California Nurses Association joined striking
refinery workers on the picket lines, carrying signs that read, “Safety before profits” and “Stand
together against Big Oil.”
To understand the potential power of such alliances, one need look back only to the legacy of the
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW) union, whose advocacy of tougher regulations and
environmental cleanup won the early support of environmental groups like the Sierra Club.
261
During a 1973 strike against Shell Oil, environmentalists launched a boycott of Shell products
that helped propel the union to victory. Working alongside new groups such as Environmentalists
for Full Employment, the OCAW helped establish the framework of worker-safety regulation
and was instrumental in the passage of the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic
Control Substances Act and other foundational environmental legislation.
However, as the power of unions has declined, a short-sightedness has taken hold in many
segments of the labor movement. That includes, as two colleagues and I have reported at In
These Times, many energy and construction unions’ decision to enter into a labor-management
partnership with the American Petroleum Institute and back its push for the expansion of fracking
and drilling, even as the industry group fights new safety regulations that would reduce oil and
gas workers’ exposure to cancer-causing substances.
There’s an alternative: The Canadian union UNIFOR, for example, has been pioneering a
forward-thinking approach in labor’s ranks, calling for a transition to clean energy that includes
retraining and other assistance for workers and even passing a resolution calling for a nationwide
fracking moratorium, despite the fact that the union represents workers in the oil and gas
industry.
A small but significant group of labor and environmental activists is working at the intersection
of these issues, calling for a united front against the oil and gas industry. To that end, the group
Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS) has issued a call for more green groups to join USW
members on the picket lines.
“[Oil refinery workers] deserve the support of environmentalists and everyone concerned about
the rights and well-being of working people,” said Joe Uehlein, the executive director of the
LNS. “As we work to protect the earth from climate change, it is particularly important that we
advocate for the needs of workers in fossil fuel industries, whose well-being must not be
sacrificed to the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The LNS and other groups instead advocate a just transition to renewable energy — a concept
pioneered in the 1970s by OCAW Vice President Tony Mazzochi, who once remarked, “Working
people aren’t going to commit economic suicide in order to advance the enhancement of the
environment. It’s not the type of choice one should be given.” The only way to avert both
economic and planetary suicide, he argued, was to build a labor-environmental coalition
powerful enough to fight for a new economy that includes retraining and compensation for
workers and communities who would otherwise be left behind. Any such transition still appears
to be a long way off. But the environmental movement can begin to lay the groundwork by siding
with workers against Big Oil and showing solidarity with the battles for health and safety that
they’re waging today.
Rebecca Burns is an assistant editor for In These Times and a Chicago-based reporter covering
labor, housing and higher education. Her writing has appeared in In These Times, Jacobin,
Truthout and other outlets.
262
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera
America's editorial policy.
March 6, 2015 - Oil on Train in Illinois Derailment Shipped by
Mercuria Energy
Firm bought the oil in North Dakota and was delivering it to refineries in Philadelphia, sources
say
By Russell Gold March 6, 2015 5:57 p.m. ET
The crude oil aboard the train involved in a fiery derailment Thursday in Illinois was shipped by
a big energy-trading company based in Switzerland.
The firm, Mercuria Energy Trading Inc., bought the oil in North Dakota and was delivering it to
refineries in Philadelphia, according to people familiar with the matter.
The train, operated by BNSF Railway Co., held about 70,000 barrels of oil from the Bakken
Shale in 103 tanker cars. Federal officials said 21 of the cars derailed near Galena, Ill., about 160
miles west of Chicago. Seven of them were punctured or had holes in their steel skins.
About 35 crude trains traveled through the area every week, according to state data.
The oil caught fire, sending a thick plume of black smoke and several fireballs into the sky. The
fire continued to burn Friday evening as federal officials warned of more explosions because one
of the tanker cars was leaking and could rupture.
Mercuria is “working with BNSF and local authorities to investigate the matter,” said Matt Lauer,
a company spokesman.
Bakken Oil Express, which operates a loading terminal in Eland, N.D., confirmed it handled the
crude for Mercuria. Its director of operations, Joe Shotwell, said the company is cooperating with
federal officials and declined to comment further.
The derailment was the third in the past three weeks. In mid-February, crude-oil trains in Mount
Carbon, W.Va., and Gogama, Ontario, derailed and caught on fire.
The incidents have prompted some elected officials to ask the federal government to speed up a
review of new design standards for tanker cars, which were proposed by the U.S. Department of
Transportation late last year.
Some are also calling for new rules addressing the combustibility of the oil traveling by rail.
“We need to look at not just the safety of the railcars, but the safety of what is being put into
those cars,” Senator Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said in a statement. “There is mounting evidence that
stricter standards are needed in the handling of Bakken crude, which appears to be particularly
volatile. ”
Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, also a Democrat, made similar comments.
263
The Wall Street Journal has reported that crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale is
significantly more volatile than traditional crude oil. The state has introduced new rules, which
will go into effect in April,
}263D263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263263
263263263263263263263퀈 凉캺谑‚ ªꥋȋ263ꥋ263ꥋ263开吀漀挀㐀ꥋ㌀㠀㐀㜀㈀㈀㘀263263
February 23, 2015 - Shell's Washington rail projecThe oil on the train that derailed in West
Virginia last month had a vapor pressure of 13.9 pounds per square inch, which exceeded the
coming North Dakota standard of 13.7 psi. Vapor-pressure levels for the oil involved in the
Illinois incident hasn’t been released.
March 6, 2015 – Galena Derailment EPA PolSitRep #1
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY POLLUTION/SITUATION REPORT
BNSF Galena Derailment - Removal Polrep
Initial Removal Polrep
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Subject: POLREP #1
Initial
BNSF Galena Derailment
E15510
Galena, IL
Latitude: 42.3744730 Longitude: -90.4443060
To: George Krebs, Illinois EPA
Captain Laura Petreikis, Illinois DNR
Russell Engelke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Kip Willis, DOT Field Ops Central Region
From: Jaime Brown, OSC
Date: 3/6/2015
264
Reporting Period: 03/5/2015 - 03/07/2015
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Site Number: E15510 Contract Number:
D.O. Number: Action Memo Date:
Response Authority: OPA Response Type: Emergency
Response Lead: PRP Incident Category: Removal Action
NPL Status: Non NPL Operable Unit:
Mobilization Date: 3/5/2015 Start Date: 3/5/2015
Demob Date: Completion Date:
CERCLIS ID: RCRIS ID:
ERNS No.: State Notification:
FPN#: E15510 Reimbursable Account #:
1.1.1 Incident Category
Emergency Removal
1.1.2 Site Description
On March 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm CST a BNSF unit train carrying crude oil derailed at Mile Post
171.6 in Jo Daviess County, Illinois near the city of Galena, Illinois. BNSF reported the incident
to the National response center at 2:52pm CST. BNSF Reports there has been a release of crude
oil to the ground. At the time the total train consisted of about 105 railroad tanker cars.
The Site is a train derailment consisting of a BNSF owned, 21 railroad tanker cars (each
containing about 30,000 gallons of Bakken Crude Oil. 17 of the tanker cars have derailed and 5
are on fire and have ruptured spilling oil onto the embankment and a seasonal wetland (currently
not flooded) adjacent to the Galena River.
The fire has been going on since the derailment occurred on 3/5/2015.
1.1.2.1 Location
Location is at Mile Post 171.6 outside (west of ) Galena Illinois in Jo Daviess County.
265
Latitude: 42.3744730
Longitude: -90.4443060
1.1.2.2 Description of Threat
1.1.3 Preliminary Removal Assessment/Removal Site Inspection Results
There are a total of 17 railroad tanker cars have derailed, 5 of the derailed rail road cars each
contain approximately 30,000 gallons of Bakken Crude oil are on fire. There are a total of 21
railroad tanker cars currently at the Site for a estimated total of about 630,000 gallons of bakken
crude with an unknown amount that has spilled onto the seasonal wetland and combusted at this
time. The spilled bakken oil has contaminated the seasonal wetland and has the potential of
discharge in the Galena River which goes into the Mississppi River about .25 miles downstream.
Besides contaminating the seasonal wetland, The oil presents a imminent and substantial danger
of discharging into the Galena River, Mississippi River. In addition, the crude oil presents a
threat to the environment which includes the adjacent Wildlife Refuge. Further the crude bakken
oil presents a threat to public health due to the downstream drinking water utilities and
uncontrolled air emissions from the fire which has thus far resulted in 4 residences being
evacuated.
2. Current Activities
2.1 Operations Section
2.1.1 Narrative
2.1.2 Response Actions to Date
OSCs Brown, Mendoza, Faryan & Benning arrived at the Site on 3/5/2015, reporting to the Fire
Chief serving as Incident Commander. The USCG Marine Safety Unit was on scene and oversaw
installation of a containment boom at the confluence of the Galena & Mississippi Rivers.
Air monitoring to protect public health was being conducted by BNSF contractor CTEH. After
approval from the IC, EPA OSCs directed START to support air monitoring being conducted by
CTEH. The
CTEH/BNSF air monitoring plan was approved by OSC Brown. START is overseeing air
monitoring and collecting air sample in SUMMA cannisters to analyze for VOCs and
particulates. To date, detections by CTEH & EPA have not detected VOCs or particulate matter
above safe levels.
BNSF successfully uncoupled approximately 84 railroad tank cars containing crude oil, thus
removing the risk of the crude oil being release from these tanks. A wrecking contractor to BNSF
re-railed derailed tank cars still intact and removed them from the Site. There are currently 10
derailed cars on the Site, some full or partially full of crude oil product. Two of these cars still
have small fires buring.
266
An earthen berm and underflow dam was constructed around the derailment site to contain runoff or crued oil before it would reach surface water. EPA inspected these structures and found
them to be effective. During the inspection, EPA did not see that any oil that had spilled into
either the Galena or Mississippi River. EPA collected oil samples for fingerprinting purposes to
be analyzed by USCG. CTEH collected samples in the same location.
EPA is also providing assistance at the command post area on implementation of the Incident
Command System process and providing updates to EPA management and community.
EPA conducted an aerial inspection of the spill and did not see oil discharging into the Galena or
Mississippi River. Currently the
IMT is operating on a 12 hour operating period with operational briefings every 6 hours.
EPA OSCs met with the BNSF Environmental Unit leader and requested the following: 1)
additional containment boom deployment along the shoreline of the train derailment to contain
any subsurface releases of crude oil; and 2) surface water monitoring of the Galena & Mississippi
River (sampling & visual).
At about 2:30pm on 3/6/2015, BNSF Hazmat reported that the fire on one of the tankers was
getting worse to the extent that the firefighting water/oil mix may overwhelm the earthen berms
and underflow dam. It was recommended that to prevent a release of oil to the Galena River and
to ensure safety that they fire be allowed to burn uncontrolled for the evening. The state and
federal agencies agreed. A pressure relief valve on the tanker car subsequently closed and an
uncontrolled fire never took place.
2.1.3 Enforcement Activities, Identity of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
BNSF Railway has taken responsibility for the release. OSC Brown issued a Notice of Federal
Interest to BNSF Railway on 3/6/2015. BNSF Railway is cooperating with EPA and other
Agencies responding the incident.
2.1.4 Progress Metrics
Waste Stream Medium Quantity Manifest # Treatment Disposal
2.2 Planning Section
2.2.1 Anticipated Activities
- EPA will review environmental sampling & monitoring plans surface & wetlands to be
submitted by BNSF.
- EPA START contractors will continue air monitoring tasks and conduct surface water and soil
sampling.
267
- EPA will continue to participate in ICS and provide tactical advice and oversight of the removal
towards protection of public health and the environment in coordination with Federal, State, and
local agencies.
- EPA requested USCG Strike Team assistance with the implementation and oversight of a health
& safety plan developed for the Site by a contractor to BNSF.
2.2.1.1 Planned Response Activities
- BNSF will continue management of the fire and containment/monitoring of the oil release with
EPA, federal, State, and local agency oversight. - BNSF will acquire emergency permits and
build a road into the seasonal wetland to enable heavy equipment to conduct wrecking
operations.
2.2.1.2 Next Steps
See Section 2.2.1
2.2.2 Issues
Fire is still ongoing at the derailment site so the incident is still in the emergency phase.
Operations are being conducted 24 hours/day during this phase. There are over a dozen agencies
and dozen contract contractors to BNSF on site. There are two entities developing Incident
Action Plans and they are not coordinating. EPA will merge these parallel planning processes
into one cohesive IMT operating under a Unified Command on 3/7/15.
2.3 Logistics Section
The EPA Mobile Command Post is on scene to support response staff. Sampling supplies and
equipment are being provided by EPA and START contractors.
2.4 Finance Section
2.4.1 Narrative
A TDD for START was issued with a $20,000 ceiling. The EPA Mobile Command Post was
deployed by ERRS contractor under an existing Task Order. FPN #E15510 was originally
opened for $50,000 with a subsequent ceiling raise approved to $250,000.
2.5 Other Command Staff
2.5.1 Safety Officer
OSC Steve Faryan has provided a safety plan through START, for EPA personnel onsite. The
USCG
Strike Team is due to arrive on site at 12:00 CST on 3/7/2015.
268
2.5.2 Liaison Officer
Herifberto Leon (on site).
2.5.3 Information Officer
Heriberto Leon (on site
3. Participating Entities
3.1 Unified Command
Galena Fire Department (IC)
BNSF Railway
Federal Railroad Administration
EPA Region 5
Illinois EPA
U.S. DOT Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
3.2 Cooperating Agencies
Galena Police Department
Jo Daviess County Sheriff's Office
Other local fire, police & emergency personnel
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Adminstration
Illinois DNR
Illinois EPA
Illinois EMA
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
OSHA
Red Cross
269
4. Personnel On Site
EPA: 7
START: 4
ERRS: 1
IEPA: 4
OTHER LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL AGENCIES: 100
BNSF & CONTRACTORS: 100
TOTAL (estimated): 216
5. Definition of Terms
Terms will be defined in the next POLREP.
6. Additional sources of information
6.1 Internet location of additional information/report
http://www.epaosc.org/bnsfgalenaspill
6.2 Reporting Schedule
Another POLREP will be issued tomorrow afternoon.
7. Situational Reference Materials
No information available at this time.
March 8, 2015 – Galena derailment EPA PolSitRep #2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
POLLUTION/SITUATION REPORT
BNSF Galena Derailment - Removal Polrep
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Subject: POLREP #2
Progress
270
BNSF Galena Derailment
E15510
Galena, IL
Latitude: 42.3744730 Longitude: -90.4443060
To: George Krebs, Illinois EPA
Captain Laura Petreikis, Illinois DNR
Russell Engelke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Kip Willis, DOT Field Ops Central Region
From: Jaime Brown, OSC
Date: 3/8/2015
Reporting Period: 3/7/2015 - 3/8/2015
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Site Number: E15510 Contract Number:
D.O. Number: Action Memo Date:
Response Authority: OPA Response Type: Emergency
Response Lead: PRP Incident Category: Removal Action
NPL Status: Non NPL Operable Unit:
Mobilization Date: 3/5/2015 Start Date: 3/5/2015
Demob Date: Completion Date:
CERCLIS ID: RCRIS ID:
ERNS No.: State Notification:
FPN#: E15510 Reimbursable Account #:
1.1.1 Incident Category
Emergency Response
1.1.2 Site Description
On March 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm CST a BNSF unit train carrying crude oil derailed at Mile Post
171.6 in Jo Daviess County, Illinois near the city of Galena, Illinois. BNSF reported the incident
to the National Response Center at 2:52pm CST. BNSF reports there has been a release of crude
oil to the ground. The unit train consisted of 105 railroad tanker cars.
The Site is a train derailment consisting of a BNSF owned, 21 railroad tanker cars (each
containing about 30,000 gallons). Of the 21 derailed cars, originally 5 were on fire and/or
ruptured spilling oil onto the embankment and in a seasonal wetland (currently not flooded)
adjacent to the Galena and Mississippi Rivers. The fire was ongoing from 3/5/2015 to 3/8/2015.
271
1.1.2.1 Location
Location is at Mile Post 171.6 outside (west of ) Galena Illinois in Jo Daviess County.
Latitude: 42.3744730
Longitude: -90.4443060
1.1.2.2 Description of Threat
Spilled oil on the shoreline is proximal to Harris Slough at the confluence of the Galena and
Mississippi Rivers.
1.1.3 Preliminary Removal Assessment/Removal Site Inspection Results
A total of 21 railroad tanker cars derailed. Five of the derailed rail cars each contain
approximately 30,000 gallons of crude oil and were on fire. There were a total of 21 railroad
tanker cars at the Site for a estimated total of about 630,000 gallons of crude with an unknown
amount spilled onto the seasonal wetland and/or combusted. The spilled oil impacted the
seasonal wetland and has the potential of discharge in the Galena or Mississppi rivers about .25
miles downstream. Besides impacting the seasonal wetland, the oil poses a threat of discharge to
the Galena River and the Mississippi River. In addition, the crude oil presents a threat to the
environment which includes the adjacent Wildlife Refuge. The crude oil also presented a
potential threat to public health from air emissions due to the fire.
2. Current Activities
2.1 Operations Section
2.1.1 Narrative
2.1.2 Response Actions to Date
OSCs Brown, Mendoza, Faryan & Benning arrived at the Site on 3/5/2015, coordinating with the
Fire Chief serving as Incident Commander. The USCG Marine Safety Unit was on scene and
oversaw installation of a containment boom at the confluence of the Galena & Mississippi
Rivers. The Marine Safety Unit has demobed.
Air monitoring to protect public health is being conducted by BNSF contractor CTEH. After
approval from the IC, EPA OSCs directed START to support air monitoring being conducted by
CTEH. The CTEH/BNSF air monitoring plan was approved by OSC Brown. START is
overseeing air monitoring and collecting air samples in SUMMA cannisters to analyze for VOCs
and particulates. To date, CTEH & EPA have been either non detectable or below health based
standards for VOCs or particulate matter.
BNSF successfully uncoupled approximately 84 railroad tank cars containing crude oil, thus
removing the risk of crude oil releasing from these tanks. A wrecking contractor to BNSF rerailed derailed intact tank cars and removed them from the Site. There are currently 9 derailed
cars remaining, some full or partially full of crude oil product. The cars and product that were
previously burning have been extinguished. BNSF transferred the oil from the tank cars to
vacuum trucks and storing the oil in tanks staged on site.
An earthen berm and underflow dam were constructed around the derailment site to contain runoff of crude oil. EPA inspected these structures and made suggestions for enhancements that
272
were implemented including the deployement of oil containment boom and absorbant boom.
During the inspection, and sampling events no oil or oil sheen has been observed in the Galena or
Mississippi River. EPA, IEPA, and BNSF/CTEH collected samples to verify either the presence
or lack thereof in the rivers. EPA collected oil samples for fingerprinting purposes to be analyzed
by USCG. CTEH collected samples in the same location.
EPA is integrated into the Incident Command System and, is providing updates to the press,
Congressional Representatives and the community. The IMT is moving to a 24 hour operating
period with 2 operational briefings.
EPA OSCs met with the BNSF Environmental Unit leader and requested the following: 1)
additional
containment boom deployment along the shoreline of the train derailment to contain any
subsurface releases of crude oil; and 2) surface water monitoring of the Galena & Mississippi
River (sampling & visual). BNSF has implemented these recommendations.
2.1.3 Enforcement Activities, Identity of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
BNSF Railway has accepted the responsibility for the release. OSC Brown issued a Notice of
Federal Interest to BNSF Railway on 3/6/2015. BNSF Railway is cooperating with EPA and
other Agencies responding the incident.
2.1.4 Progress Metrics
Waste Stream Medium Quantity Manifest # Treatment Disposal
2.2 Planning Section
2.2.1 Anticipated Activities
- EPA and IEPA have reviewed, approved and implemented the environmental sampling &
monitoring plans which include sampling of the surface water in the river and the BNSF rail right
of way.
- EPA START contractors and CTEH will continue 24 hour air monitoring tasks in the
residential areas in Illinois and Iowa and in the work zone. BNSF contractors are collecting
surface water and soil samples with EPA and IEPA oversight.
- EPA will continue to coordinate in the ICS structure and provide tactical advice and oversight
of the removal towards protection of public health and the environment in coordination with
Federal, State, and local agencies.
- USCG Strike Team will continue to provide assistance in implementation and oversight of a
health & safety plan developed for the Site by a contractor to BNSF.
2.2.1.1 Planned Response Activities
- BNSF will continue containment/monitoring of the oil release with EPA, federal, State, and
local agency oversight. Plans for environmental remediation will be disussed, prepared and
implemented.
- BNSF built a road into the seasonal wetland to enable heavy equipment to conduct wrecking
operations. BNSF recieved an emergency permit from the USACE under the Clean Water Act
273
404 to conduct this work. Rebuilding of the rail line has intitiated and trains are projected to
begin moving on
3/9/15.
2.2.1.2 Next Steps
See Section 2.2.1
2.2.2 Issues
The Fire has been extinguished at the derailment site so the incident is transitioning from the
emergency phase to the assessment and remediation of remaining hazards. Operations are still
being conducted 24 hours/day during this phase. There are over a dozen agencies a dozen
contract contractors to BNSF on site. EPA is working with BNSF Railway, IEPA, and Jo Daviess
County, and IEMA to develop a daily Incident Action Plan which is operating in a Unified
Command.
2.3 Logistics Section
The EPA Mobile Command Post is on scene to support response staff. Sampling supplies and
equipment are being provided by EPA and START contractors.
2.4 Finance Section
2.4.1 Narrative
A TDD for START was issued with a $20,000 ceiling. The EPA Mobile Command Post was
deployed by ERRS contractor under an existing Task Order. FPN #E15510 was originally
opened for $50,000 with a subsequent ceiling raise approved to $250,000.
2.5 Other Command Staff
2.5.1 Safety Officer
The USCG Strike Team is on site and is supporting the Safety Officer. BNSF has appointed a
contractor,
Arcadis to prepare and implement a Site Wide Health and Safety Plan.
2.5.2 Liaison Officer
Herifberto Leon (on site).
2.5.3 Information Officer
Heriberto Leon (on site
3. Participating Entities
3.1 Unified Command
Galena Fire Department (IC)
BNSF Railway
EPA Region 5
Illinois EPA
274
3.2 Cooperating Agencies
Galena Police Department
Jo Daviess County Sheriff's Office
Other local fire, police & emergency personnel (through Mutual Aid)
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Adminstration
Illinois DNR
Illinois EPA
Illinois EMA (MABAS)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
OSHA
Red Cross
4. Personnel On Site
EPA: 7
START: 4
ERRS: 1
IEPA: 4
OTHER LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL AGENCIES: 75
BNSF & CONTRACTORS: 100
- SUNPRO
- Huelcher
- CTEH
- Wenck
- Arcadis
- TRC
- Pinnacle
- Baywest
- WCEC
- Specialized
TOTAL (estimated): 191
5. Definition of Terms
275
Terms will be defined in the next POLREP.
6. Additional sources of information
6.1 Internet location of additional information/report
http://www.epaosc.org/bnsfgalenaspill
http://www2.epa.gov/il/galena-train-derailment
6.2 Reporting Schedule
Another POLREP will be issued March 9.
7. Situational Reference Materials
No information available at this time.
March 6, 2015 - Macomb’s plan for derailment: A Western Courier
special report about the dangers on rail
Nicholas Stewart | Posted: Friday, March 6, 2015 3:29 pm
A Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) train with 103 cars loaded with crude oil derailed just
south of Galena, Illinois yesterday afternoon. Fire took over several cars, and explosions were
seen streaking into the sky. In a statement, BNSF said “A BNSF Railway train derailed at
approximately 1:20 pm CST in a rural area south of Galena, IL. There are no injuries reported.”
This is just the latest in a series of accidents that have occurred involving crude oil trains in the
U.S. Since this series began on Monday, one additional accident occurred in the city of New
Orleans. Luckily for The Big Easy, no oil leaked in that derailment.
“With railroad accidents, transportation accidents, this is nothing new to us,” said Jack
Rozdilsky, professor of emergency management at Western Illinois University. “Transportation
accidents have been a potential hazard in any community with state highways running through it,
any community with railroads running through it. You have the potential for such accidents.”
With Macomb sitting on a major BNSF thoroughfare for these oil trains coming from the
Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, the city has been practicing in the event a disaster like this
could happen here.
“Now what happens when transportation of this Bakken crude goes cross country,” Rozdilsky
said. “There are many communities which become involved. Involved even just through a train
carrying these contents rolling from the extraction site to the refining site.”
If the unthinkable was to happen, the Macomb first responders would act quickly.
“For immediate impacts, we would have to consider this as a technological disaster,” Rozdilsky
said. “This would require a certain type of response which would begin with first responders.
These agencies are the designated entities in the community which would engage in a first
response.”
276
When responding to the train derailment, the first thing the Macomb Fire Department would do
is determine what was on the train.
“We’re going to have to make sure what it is, make sure it’s just oil, that’s step one,” said Dan
Kreps, McDonough County’s Emergency Service and Disaster Agency (ESDA) director. “That’s
going to determine our zone we set up, the stay-out zone. Then, once we find out it’s just oil, we
go to our Emergency Response Guidebook, and that would tell us how big of a radius to set up.”
For first responders, a crude oil fire is a challenging fight. Due to the intense heat of the fire, and
the nature of oil to spread with water, on top of the danger explosions would pose to first
responders, the fire would likely be left to burn itself out. That’s when the order to evacuate
would be given.
“If they’re leaking, they (firefighters) wouldn’t be able to get in there, we’d probably let it burn
off, and we’d have to start setting up evacuations,” Kreps said.
According to the Emergency Response Guidebook, a crude oil fire would impose at least a halfmile evacuation order. This type of evacuation would be a large undertaking for the city.
Two weeks ago on Feb. 20, Macomb first responders, the Western Illinois University Office of
Public Safety (OPS), the U.S. National Guard and the American Red Cross took part in a training
exercise. This exercise dealt with a train derailment which had chemicals on board. In this
exercise, 600 homes were evacuated.
“Macomb’s got the call out system,” Kreps said. “You set up your perimeter, and then it will call
all those people that have a land line, and then anybody in that area that has registered their cell
phone number, it would contact everyone in that area. Depending on the disaster, officers or fire
personnel would be able to go in to try and get people to evacuate those houses. A lot of times
you would use your PA speaker on your cars and trucks to try and get people to evacuate the
area.”
During the evacuation process, organizations like the American Red Cross would step in to help
those people that are in the evacuation area. The Red Cross would begin setting up shelters and
would be ready to provide the essentials if people are displaced.
“Red Cross’s primary responsibility is to make sure that individuals are provided safe shelter,
food and other resources in that immediate response,” said Amber Wood, executive director for
the American Red Cross. “We are not a first response agency, we are a support agency to our first
responders. We don’t self-deploy, we are called upon by emergency management or a fire
department or other entity that requests our services. So then we provide, based on what they
identified as their needs, and we all work together. And that’s why having strong partnerships
created and established outside of times of disaster, so everyone does know what their role is, and
how we can best support one another and the community as a whole is so important.”
“It (our response) is actually very quick,” said Luke Zimmerman, disaster program specialist for
the American Red Cross. “We’re implementing a new dispatch system that we call DCSops,
which we developed from fire departments, especially volunteer fire departments, throughout the
nation where we get that initial information and then it’s spread through everybody’s text, emails
and phone calls. And we actually have trailers that are set up for sheltering. So the minute we get
the call, we get the trailer to the shelter and that process begins very quickly.”
277
Despite the Macomb Fire Department’s extensive training, there wouldn’t be a way to combat
the fire directly. According to Kreps, the focus would shift to the fire spreading away from the
tank cars.
“We’ve got a very good fire department here,” Kreps said. “They practice all the time for
hazardous material accident stuff. They’re one of the few teams in our area. Galesburg, Quincy
and us, are the only hazmat level A teams for the fire departments in this area. And they practice
with other units just like they had Galesburg come down for this (training exercise) as well. So
for hazardous material incidents, of course you’d have those other assets, they could call for more
assets further away but, of course it would take them longer to get here.”
Planning for any disaster is very important according to the American Red Cross, from small to
large events.
“For every dollar invested in preparedness, I believe it’s a $7 savings on the recovery side of
things,” Wood said. “The more we (The American Red Cross) can promote individuals and
families to have a plan and be prepared, to make sure they’re practicing that plan. Once it’s been
created, the better off our community as a whole can respond. It builds resilient communities
when it comes to those types of things.”
Planning goes a long way in a lot of situations, but there will always be something you cannot
plan for and predict, especially when it comes to a train derailment.
“There’s just certain things you cannot put in a plan,” Kreps said. “A train derailment, it is what
it is, but sometimes what’s on that train is the problem and not necessarily the derailment itself.
You never know because all the different chemicals that go through on a train, you never know
what that chemical is going to be. You can only plan so far ahead of time.”
As the crude oil extraction increases in the U.S., and as more trains laden with millions of
gallons of crude oil move across the country through small towns like Macomb, the threats for
these types of disasters increases. With the need for more energy, threats will continually exist;
from the ocean drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to fracking in North Dakota.
“What happens sometimes, the technology gets ahead of our ability to respond to an accident
with the technology,” Rozdilsky said.
March 7, 2015 - EPA: Illinois oil train derailment threatens
Mississippi River
By Curtis Tate
McClatchy Washington Bureau March 7, 2015
WASHINGTON — An oil train derailment and spill in northwest Illinois poses an “imminent
and substantial danger” of contaminating the Mississippi River, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said Saturday.
The spill from the derailment, which occurred Thursday, also threatens the Galena River, a
tributary of the Mississippi, and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, one of
the most complex ecosystems in North America.
278
The EPA said it couldn’t estimate how much oil was spilled, but that the 21 cars of the 105-car
BNSF Railway train that derailed contained 630,000 gallons of Bakken crude from North
Dakota. Small fires from the wreckage continued to burn Saturday.
Earlier Saturday, another oil train derailed and caught fire near Gogama, Ontario, bringing to five
the total number of fiery derailments in the U.S. and Canada in as many weeks.
The safety of trains carrying flammable materials has become an issue as the introduction of new
drilling technology has allowed the development of crude oil deposits far from traditional
pipelines, particularly in the so-called Bakken formation in North Dakota. Rail has become the
preferred way to transport that crude to refineries, with railroads moving about 500,000 carloads
of oil last year, according to industry estimates, up from 9,500 in 2008. One tank car holds
30,000 gallons.
But recent derailments have cast doubt on the effectiveness of safety efforts and suggest that no
tank car currently in service on the North American rail system is tough enough to resist damage
in relatively low-speed derailments.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, which is investigating the Illinois derailment,
the train was traveling at just 23 miles per hour when it left the tracks, well below the maximum
speed allowed. The damaged tank cars were newer CPC-1232 tank cars, which are supposed to
be safer than previous ones, but have failed in at least four derailments this year and at least two
in 2014.
Saturday’s derailment of a Canadian National Railway train took place about 23 miles from
where another oil train derailed on the same rail line three weeks ago. The railroad said on
Twitter Saturday afternoon that five cars were in a local waterway, some of them on fire. About
264,000 gallons of oil were released in the Feb. 14 derailment. The Transportation Safety Board
of Canada is investigating both accidents.
The Illinois derailment is the second in three weeks on U.S. rails. On Feb. 16, 28 cars of a 107car CSX train derailed in Mount Carbon, W.Va., and 19 caught fire. One house was destroyed
and more than 100 residents were evacuated for four days. Many residents and first responders
witnessed columns of fire rising hundreds of feet in the air as several of the tank cars ruptured
from heat exposure.
A Canadian Pacific train carrying ethanol derailed on Feb. 4 along the Upper Mississippi north of
Dubuque, Iowa. The EPA estimates about 55,000 gallons spilled, some of which burned and
some of which was recovered from the icy river.
In a statement Saturday, BNSF said a temporary road was being built to the Illinois site, about
four miles south of Galena, to help extinguish remaining fires and remove damaged cars. The
railroad said it “sincerely regrets” the impact of the derailment.
“Protection of the communities we serve, the safety of our employees and protection of the
environment are our highest priorities,” the railroad said.
The role of the newer CPC-1232 tank cars in recent derailments and fires raises new worries
about the risk shipments of oil pose to the cities and towns through which they travel. The rail
industry adopted the CPC-1232 tank cars as standard in 2011 for oil shipments, saying they were
279
an improvement over the DOT-111 tank car, which had been in use for decades to haul a variety
of commodities, including ethanol and crude.
But in spite of special reinforcement of exposed areas, the new cars are still prone to spilling
their contents, even at relatively low speeds.
On Jan. 30, the U.S. Department of Transportation sent new regulations for oil and ethanol trains
to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. The rule-making package is
expected to include a new tank car design that exceeds the CPC-1232 standard.
According to the department’s February report on significant rule-makings, the final rule is
scheduled for publication on May 12.
March 8, 2015 - CN investigates another fiery train derailment near
Gogama
Train hauling tanker cars with crude oil derailed Saturday, causing a fire near Gogama, Ont.
CBC News Posted: Mar 08, 2015 5:36 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 08, 2015 10:11 AM ET
CN Rail says there's no sign that drinking water near the site of a train derailment in northern
Ontario has been polluted.
A train hauling tanker cars with crude oil derailed yesterday morning near the community of
Gogama, causing a fire and a spill into a local river system. OPP have reported 10 cars left the
tracks.
Canadian Press is reporting that CN says there's no indication the drinking water supply to
Gogama and a nearby First Nation have been affected.
CN also says air monitoring systems have not detected any issues.
The company has launched its emergency response plan, bringing in its engineering, operating,
environment and dangerous goods experts.
CN chief operating officer Jim Vena has apologized to local residents for the disruption caused
by the train wreck and is heading to the scene, about 80 kilometres south of Timmins.
This is the third CN derailment in northern Ontario in less than a month, and the second in the
same area.
CN says indications are that 'the drinking water supply to Gogama Village and the nearby First
Nation are not affected at this time.' (Erik White/CBC)
Nonetheless, it could be another nervous day for people in the small town of Gogama.
Firefighters are trying to control the flames and smoke from the burning oil tankers that derailed
on the tracks, just four kilometres from town.
Crews are still cleaning up a similarly fiery derailment near the community from just three weeks
ago.
'Very hard to accept'
280
Rick Duguay woke early Saturday morning to a strange banging noise. Having spent his whole
life in Gogama, he was used to the sound of trains, but knew this was different. And it was, with
half a dozen cars bursting into flames and sending a black smoke towering over the town.
?Duguay runs the general store which, like most of Gogama, is just steps from the railroad.
"Luckily it's not right here at the railroad crossing, but it's close enough and very hard to accept
the things going on," said Duguay. But while he wants to see railroads made safer, he doesn't
think these two fiery crashes will change much in the town.
"The worry was always there that a train wreck could happen in town just like everybody else,
but I mean, we lived with it all our life."
Down the road from Gogama, and down stream from the derailment, is Mattagami First Nation
— where people were warned Saturday not to drink water from the river.
Morris Neveau said these two derailments so close together has unnerved many in his
community.
"It affects our thinking and how we live, you know, because we live in fear, eh?"
'What can we do now?'
While the intense heat of the fire has kept them away so far, today investigators hope to start
finding how much oil was spilled and why these cars didn't stay on the tracks.
With a plume of black smoke looming over the town, people in Gogama spent most of the
weekend asking questions.
Thirty-three-year-old Dawn Simoneau was getting some of them from her two young daughters.
"Yeah, they have been. Like, 'Are the fish going to be OK?' and they are concerned as well."
Like most in Gogama, Simoneau has lived her whole life with trains rumbling past and the
background fear something might happen.
"You always had that 'this is just always the way it's been.' And now ... we're thinking 'what can
we do now to make sure this doesn't happen again?'"
That has some talking about the Energy East oil pipeline, which has faced opposition in other
parts of northern Ontario.
Nickel Belt New Democrat MP Claude Gravelle said he didn't want to get into that debate while
visiting Gogama Saturday.
"Well, that's a different discussion for a different day, but there certainly are some concerns about
pipelines. But there are concerns about rail cars. What's the safest? Accidents are accidents."
Investigators hope to learn more about the cause of this latest derailment on Sunday.
OPP report Highway 144 at Highway 661 at the Watershed is closed at Highway 101 and
Highway 144, but said there is access to communities north of Gogama by way of the Cache.
281
March 8, 2015 - Province criticizes feds on rail safety after northern
Ontario derailment
In the wake of a train derailment in northern Ontario this weekend, provincial politicians came
out swinging against the federal government’s failure to ensure rail safety.
By: Sadiya Ansari Staff Reporter, Published on Sun Mar 08 2015
As emergency crews battled a fire sparked by the derailment of a CN train carrying crude oil in
northern Ontario, provincial politicians came out swinging against the federal government’s
failure to ensure rail safety.
The 94-car train derailed early Saturday morning in Gogama, Ont., 200 kilometres north of
Sudbury, in circumstances reminiscent of the disaster that killed 47 in Lac-Mégantic, Que. in
2013.
“By seeing the horrific crash site first hand today, it’s clear the Harper government needs to do
more to improve rail safety to better protect our communities and the environment,” said
Sudbury Liberal MPP Glenn Thibeault in an email statement Sunday evening.
Thibeault, who is also the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Environment and Climate
Change, went on to say this accident happened despite CN’s compliance with new federal
regulations on rail cars.
Ontario’s transportation minister Steven Del Duca said he would be contacting his federal
counterpart Lisa Raitt to address his “serious concerns” with the state of rail safety.
Raitt said in a statement that the federal government has taken a number of actions to strengthen
rail safety.
“We have already banned the least crash-resistant tank cars from the system; came out last year
with tougher new regulations; and have driven the acceleration of the development of a brand
new standard with the U.S.,” reads the statement.
Meanwhile, officials from both governments were on site to manage the aftermath of the third
rail accident in the province within a month. Ontario’s environment ministry is monitoring the
cleanup while the federal Transportation Safety Board (TSB) sent two staff to Gogama to
investigate the cause of the accident. The investigation of the actual site can’t begin until the fire
is out.
The efforts to contain the fire were “progressing well” on Sunday evening, said Gerry Talbot,
spokesperson for the Gogama Emergency Operations Committee.
But Chief Walter Naveau of nearby Mattagami First Nation is concerned about the long-term
impact of the accident, particularly on the river where five of the railcars landed.
“That water body leads to our water body,” he said. “There is a very big concern regarding our
water because it’s close to fish sanctuaries and our spawning grounds and goes right through our
community here.”
It’s too early to determine how much crude oil was dumped into the river but three containment
282
booms were put in place and more will follow soon, said CN spokesperson Jim Feeny.
“That still doesn’t guarantee anything,” Naveau said.
“Everything that is in contact with the poisons out there directly affects us in our everyday life.”
Naveau is particularly concerned because this is the second CN derailment in the area in the last
month.
This is an unsurprising pattern, says Adam Scott with the advocacy group Environmental
Defence.
"It's basically guaranteed to happen again, this is not an isolated incident . . .," Scott said. "So
until something dramatic is done, we're going to see this continuing over and over again."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-08/cn-rail-bnsf-tackle-accidents-as-groupseeks-ban-on-oil-trains
March 8, 2015 - CN Rail, BNSF Tackle Accidents as Group Seeks
Ban on Oil Trains
by Doug Alexander
11:33 AM CDT
March 8, 2015
(Bloomberg) -- Canadian National Railway Co. is building a 1,500-foot (457 meter) long track to
bypass a burning train that derailed Saturday in northern Ontario, while BNSF Railway Co. crews
are working to reopen track in rural Illinois after a train carrying oil derailed three days ago.
CN crews teamed with outside specialists are fighting the blaze after an eastbound train carrying
crude oil derailed and caught fire around 2:45 a.m. near Gogama, about 600 kilometers north of
Toronto, cutting off rail traffic between Toronto and Winnipeg, Manitoba. The BNSF train
jumped the tracks Thursday afternoon near Galena, Illinois, about 160 miles west of Chicago,
according to the railroad, a unit of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
The accidents bring to four the number of oil train wrecks in North America in the past three
weeks, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. The environment group is calling for a
halt to transport of oil by rail, which has surged since 2009 with the boom in crude production
from shale.
“We need a moratorium on oil trains,” Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist at the center, which has
fought to protect wildlife for 26 years, said in a March 7 statement. “The oil and railroad
industries are playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and our environment.”
283
The BNSF train was carrying oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale formation for Mercuria
Energy Group Ltd. Twenty-one of the train’s 105 cars, which include two sand cars as buffers,
jumped the tracks Thursday afternoon. The U.S. Department of Transportation said 14 cars were
in a pileup and half of those were punctured. Emergency responders evacuated a 1-mile radius,
which contained six homes. No injuries have been reported.
BNSF plans to reopen its mainline track Monday, Mike Trevino, a spokesman for the railroad,
said in a phone interview Sunday.
40-Fold Increase
North American oil producers have increased their reliance on rail as new pipelines failed to keep
pace with a surge of production from shale. The typical rail car carries about 700 barrels of oil,
according to data posted on BNSF’s website. The number of oil carloads rose more than 40-fold
from 2009 through 2013, when 435,560 carloads were shipped, and kept climbing last year to an
estimated 500,000, according to the Association of American Railroads.
The CN derailment damaged a bridge over a waterway as five tank cars ended up in the water,
with some of them on fire, the Montreal-based railway said in a Saturday statement. Crews have
placed three lines of booms on the river to contain the crude. Drinking water supplies to Gogama
Village and a nearby Mattagami First Nation community are not affected, CN said.
“Fire suppression activities will begin later today,” spokesman Jim Feeny said Sunday in an emailed statement. “Residents will likely see occasional smoke plumes of various shades of black,
gray or white. This is expected, normal, and poses no threat to the public or the environment.”
Pipeline Limits
The railcars, carrying crude oil from Alberta, are CPC-1232 models railroads began to roll out in
2011 to boost safety.
The accident marks the second derailment of a CN oil train in three weeks near Gogama. A train
with 100 cars, all laden with crude from Alberta bound for eastern Canada, derailed on Feb. 14
about 30 miles north of the town. A total of 29 cars were involved in that incident and seven
caught fire, a spokesman said at the time.
Investigators from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada are on site, which is 37 kilometers
from the previous accident, agency spokesman John Cottreau said Sunday by phone. The train
was headed to Levis, Quebec, when 30 to 40 cars derailed.
“Billions of gallons of oil pass through towns and cities ill-equipped to respond to the kinds of
explosions and spills that have been occurring,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
“Millions of gallons of crude oil have been spilled into waterways.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Doug Alexander in Toronto at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Peter Eichenbaum at
284
[email protected]; David Scanlan at [email protected] Jim Efstathiou Jr.,
Bruce Rule
March 9, 2015 - Canadian government speeds up work to develop
safer tank cars
Gogama derailment and fire in oil-carrying train shows Transport Canada's new standard might
not prevent another Lac-Megantic.
By: Jacques Gallant Staff Reporter, Published on Mon Mar 09 2015
The federal government is working in an “expedited manner” with U.S. counterparts to develop a
new standard of tank car to carry flammable liquids, the federal transport minister’s office said
Monday.
The statement comes two days after a CN train derailed near Gogama, about 80 km south of
Timmins, causing a massive fire and spilling crude oil into the waterway. No injuries were
reported.
The product was being carried in tank cars built to the new CPC-1232 standard, which the
Transportation Safety Board of Canada has described as inadequate and has said appears to
perform similarly to the older tank cars involved in the 2013 Lac-Mégantic disaster, which left 47
people dead.
Zach Segal, a spokesman for federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt, said the proposed new
standard would include features such as thicker steel and require that the cars be “manufactured
as a jacketed, thermally insulated tank car with a full head shield, top fitting protection and new
bottom outlet valve.”
He did not give a firm deadline for the rollout of the new cars.
Transportation safety advocates are urging the federal government to get tougher with rail
standards. They expressed concern about whether Transport Canada is up to the task of
determining the best standard, considering it was the federal department that ordered in January
2014 that all new tank cars built to carry flammable liquids be in line with the CPC-1232
standard.
“We need a new standard now,” said Mark Winfield, associate professor of environmental
studies at York University, who studies public safety regulation.
“It does beg the question: Does the (federal) department have the technical and policy capacity to
develop these kinds of standards in the first place? Also: Who is it talking to in this
conversation? Where is the public representation?”
Transport Canada should increase safety measures while rail companies are still shipping with
cars built to the CPC-1232 standard, said Winfield. He cited lower speeds and smaller trains,
among others.
285
Segal said Transport Canada has taken a number of actions on rail safety, including continuing to
hire inspectors, carrying out more frequent audits and removing the least crash-resistant DOT111 tank cars from service.
The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the latest derailment near Gogama, the third CN
derailment in northern Ontario in less than a month.
France Gélinas, MPP for the area, said residents in Gogama have lost faith in the oversight
process for rail transportation.
“Everybody was talking about Lac-Mégantic,” she said. “You'd figure that by now we would
have learned from the disaster that happened there, but frankly, the facts speak loudly that we
didn't.”
March 9, 2015 - Pipelines are safest method of moving oil
Opinion Columnists
By Jerry Agar, Toronto Sun
First posted: Monday, March 09, 2015 05:41 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, March 09, 2015
05:52 PM EDT
It’s past time for leaders in Canada and the United States to stop listening to U.S. President
Barack Obama and hysterical environmental activists and get on with the business of building
pipelines.
Real leaders and the general public should value reason over emotion, but that isn’t what we are
getting, particularly from Obama with his ever-shifting list of excuses when it comes to vetoing
the Keystone XL pipeline.
If the argument is pipelines are particularly dangerous, as compared to other modes of oil
transportation, we can dispense with that notion.
Let’s look at some facts.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada reports, “The last fatal accident on a federallyregulated pipeline system occurred in 1988.” That is more than a quarter of a century ago.
Obama was just getting into law school that year.
Many of the present-day environmental protestors in Canada weren’t even born yet.
The TSB also reports, “In 2013, in the federally-regulated pipeline system, 25 companies
transported 207 million cubic metres of oil,” with 11 pipeline accidents that year.
Again, no fatalities, so that’s a lot of oil safely moved.
How does that compare to rail transport of oil and other goods?
286
“In 2013, 1,067 rail accidents were reported to the TSB.”
Nearly 20% of accidents involved vehicles and pedestrians at rail crossings and only 4%
involved passenger trains.
Pipelines don’t have active crossings or passengers.
In 2013, the most complete recent year the TSB reports on, there were 144 rail accidents
involving dangerous good, with 127 deaths.
That includes the Lac-Megantic rail disaster which killed 47 people.
That leaves 80 other deaths in one year due to rail accidents.
Is that a higher number than you would have thought?
It is almost exactly the five-year average of 81 annual rail accident deaths.
A Fraser Institute study, Intermodal Safety in the Transport of Oil, “determined that the rate of
injury requiring hospitalization was 30 times lower among oil pipeline workers compared to rail
workers involved in the transport of oil, based on extensive data collected in the United States.
Road transport fared even worse, with an injury rate 37 times higher than pipelines, based on
reports to the U.S. Department of Transportation for the period 2005-09.’
“The study also found the risk of spill incidents is lower for pipelines per billion ton-miles of oil
movement compared to rail and road.”
Oil will be moved no matter how it is done, so, in effect, the pipeline protestors are arguing for a
continuation of more dangerous modes of oil transport instead of pipelines.
Does the safety of workers and the public matter to these protestors?
Of course some of them, perhaps all, are actually arguing for ending the use of oil altogether.
They’re welcome to that opinion, but good luck getting it past the general public, who for the
most part, know better.
It’s foolish to believe we can in a practical or economic sense stop using oil any time soon.
Alternative energy is just not ready.
We are not addicted to oil, we are addicted to civilization and civilization runs on oil, coal and
gas, so our decision-making should be fact-based, not childishly emotional.
Since we still need oil to run practically everything and there is still a lot of it, we’re going to dig
it up, transport it and use it. Don’t we want to do that safely?
287
March 9, 2015 - Wisconsin not immune from possible train
derailment
March 9, 2015 By Jackie Johnson
Increased rail traffic means a fiery derailment could happen in Wisconsin.
State Railroad Commissioner Jeff Plale said the rapid growth of rail traffic could mean a fiery
wreck here, similar to one last week in northwest Illinois. Though, he said he doesn’t want to
alarm anyone. “We’ve been very fortunate” Plale repeats for emphasis, “We’ve been very
fortunate. I don’t want to say that it’s inevitable, but we’re prepared in the event that it does
happen.”
: The Burlington Northern train that derailed in rural Illinois Thursday passed through the Badger
State just moments before it jumped the tracks and caught fire. (:17)
Plale said the rail industry is “proactive,” and going to “great lengths” to prevent disasters. “We
work very hard with partners in the railroad industry, with local governments to make sure that
the tracks are in good shape, that the crossings are safe, that the proper circuitry is there.”
Tank cars on a pair of recent derailments had a higher safety standard than federal law requires,
but Plale acknowledged nothing’s ever 100 percent. “You prepare for the worst and you pray to
God that it never happens.”
Plale said, “99.997 percent” of all rail shipments make it to their destination without incident. He
said no other mode of transportation can claim that. “It’s a very, very safe way of transporting
goods.” But he said, “When it goes wrong … it goes wrong.”
Canadian Pacific Railway trains carrying oil and ethanol pass through Wisconsin almost every
day.
On Saturday, a CN Rail train carrying oil derailed in Ontario and caught fire. No injuries were
reported.
: Jackie Johnson report (:50)
Globe editorial
March 9, 2015 - Lac-Mégantic: By no means the last explosion of its
kind
The Globe and Mail Published Monday, Mar. 09 2015, 6:15 PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Mar. 09 2015, 6:23 PM EDT
288
When the federal government announced bulked-up rail-safety measures last fall, Transport
Minister Lisa Raitt said, “Canadians are never going to forget what happened in Lac-Mégantic.”
The oil-fuelled fireball that claimed 47 lives in 2013 scarred our national consciousness, but Ms.
Raitt’s words would carry more heft if oil-ferrying trains didn’t keep exploding on her watch. On
Monday, firefighters wrestled with burning cars after a derailment near Gogama, Ont., about 600
kilometres north of Toronto. The rest of us are grappling with questions, such as: Weren’t
updated safety requirements for tanker cars and a stouter inspections regime supposed to make
the booming oil-by-rail trade vastly safer for Canadian communities?
They haven’t, apparently. The weekend accident is the second major derailment in the Gogama
area in three weeks. It adds to harrowing post-Mégantic conflagrations in Plaster Rock, N.B., and
Gainford, Alta., and a slew of other calamities all over North America. Ms. Raitt said she’s very
concerned by the latest mishap; perhaps she’ll heed the appeals from the Ontario government,
among others, to move more boldly.
The federal government can’t be charged with inaction – Ms. Raitt and her department have
worked diligently – but that doesn’t mean there has been sufficient action.
All indications are that the Gogama train complied with the latest federal regulations. But
standards for robust new bulk oil cars won’t be unveiled until April, and likely won’t be applied
for months. That’s partly the fault of bureaucratic foot-dragging in the U.S. However blame is to
be apportioned, more urgency is required.
For example, Canadian authorities ought to determine whether sludgy Alberta bitumen is as
volatile and combustible as Bakken shale crude (a shipment of which blew up Lac-Mégantic’s
downtown). There appears to be a widespread assumption it is not; the people of Gogama might
tell you otherwise.
Officials in North Dakota have worked to identify precisely what makes shale oil so explosive
and will soon introduce filtration measures to make it more stable. North of the border, no such
processes appear forthcoming.
Pipelines may be politically and environmentally problematic, but they are demonstrably safer
than rail cars. Ottawa would be wise to thaw its diplomatic relations with a White House that is
opposing the Keystone XL project.
March 9, 2015 - Crude oil train derailment risk has Lehigh Valley
first responders on alert
By Edward Sieger | The Express-Times
on March 09, 2015 at 6:00 AM, updated March 09, 2015 at 6:02 AM
289
A Norfolk Southern railroad line with trains that transport 1,000,000 gallons or more of Bakken
crude oil cuts through the Lehigh Valley. Area emergency responders say they are training on
how to handle a possible oil train derailment. (James Moening | NJ Advance Media)
A high profile train derailment that killed 47 in Quebec and another that burned for three days in
West Virginia have put a spotlight on the safety of freight trains hauling Bakken crude oil
through Pennsylvania.
The PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center last week highlighted the possible danger,
estimating more than 206,000 Lehigh Valley residents live within potential half-mile evacuation
zones for such a derailment.
But Bakken crude has been on the radar screens of local emergency officials since last year's
catastrophe in Canada, and the response to an oil train derailment is similar to that of other
hazardous materials, according to emergency personnel.
"There's hazardous chemicals coming through our cities and municipalities right now and for
years," said Easton fire Chief John Bast.
PennEnvironment released the report "Danger Around the Bend: The Threat of Oil Trains in
Pennsylvania" and highlighted the number of residents in Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton that
live within a possible evacuation zone. The crude oil, being shipped from the Bakken Formation
in North Dakota, contains more volatile organic compounds, giving it a much lower flash point,
according to the environmental group.
290
Bakken oil is a relatively new player on the market and a hot topic right now among the
public, Allentown fire Chief Lee Laubach said. The Pennsylvania State Fire Academy has
already offered training on how to respond to a oil train derailment, and the Lehigh County
Emergency Management Agency is coordinating similar training, he said.
As new chemicals hit the market and the state's highways and rail lines, emergency responders
train on what to expect in the event of a chemical release, Laubach said. And it's no different
with Bakken oil, which will have its own properties of which firefighters must be aware.
But hazmat teams are not reinventing the wheel every time a new chemical is developed,
according to Laubach. First responders have trained on how to handle an ammonia or chlorine
leak, for instance, and the evacuation zone and procedures for handling Bakken may be similar,
he said.
While the individual scenario dictates the response, hazmat teams employ general protocols,
Laubach said. In the event of a train derailment, responders will first retrieve a manifest from the
conductor to find out what the cars are hauling, he said.
Is there a fire? What's the wind direction? Is a river or creek nearby? The national Emergency
Response Guide will help determine what area must be evacuated based on a set of variables,
Laubach said.
Allentown has established and used evacuation centers at Dieruff High School and the Agri-Plex
at the Allentown Fairgrounds that can be used in the event of a large-scale evacuation, according
to the chief.
The Allentown Fire Department is one of three certified hazmat teams in the Lehigh Valley along
with the Bethlehem Fire Department and the Lehigh County Emergency Management Agency.
As a certified hazmat team, members train once a month and hold joint training sessions with
other fire departments at least once every six months, Laubach said.
"As lessons learned come out of the West Virginia incident, it'll filter down to us," he said.
"We're always striving to learn more."
Lehigh County Director of Emergency Services Scott Lindenmuth said his agency will conduct
training regarding Bakken oil with Northampton County fire officials to assure that everyone is
reading from the same play book.
Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton are the Lehigh Valley's only fully paid fire departments.
Volunteer departments serve communities like Emmaus and Alburtis, where rail traffic is high,
so the county's 44-member hazmat team will train with volunteer squads to assure they have
experience on the necessary equipment and are familiar with protocols, he said.
"They're not strangers to us," Lindenmuth said.
There's no doubt emergency responders must be aware of Bakken crude and familiarize
themselves with how it reacts, Lindenmuth said. But he's confident in the area's working
relationship with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and the skill sets being
constantly refined by the county's team.
291
"There are other products on the rail that we will have trained for," he said. "This is just one more
product."
Bethlehem's hazmat team has started training on how to address a Bakken crude spill, according
to fire Chief and Emergency Management Coordinator Robert Novatnack.
Novatnack echoed his colleagues' assessment that the introduction of Bakken oil doesn't
dramatically alter how their respective agencies prepare and train. Every emergency call is
different, he said, but responses are dictated by standard operating procedures that are reviewed,
refined and practiced.
"We're not just responding to just fires anymore," Novatnack said. "It's really evolved over the
last 30 years."
Bast, the Easton fire chief, pointed to a recent public health scare: the Ebola outbreak in Africa
that reached the U.S. While the likelihood of an outbreak locally was low, first responders
needed to be aware of protocols to make sure they were prepared, he said.
Laubach drew comparisons between the recent spotlight put on crude oil train derailments and
the widespread anthrax scares in 2001.
"We got inundated with calls. Everybody sees it and gets in their minds," he said. "I'm not
downplaying concerns, but we're always trying to stay in the forefront."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/09/exploding-trains-and-crude-oil/
March 9, 2015 - Exploding Trains and Crude Oil - Listen to the
Workers
March 09, 2015
by JON FLANDERS
On the eve of the first conference bringing together rail workers and environmentalists in
Richmond, California, we’ve had one oil train after another go off the tracks and explode. The
latest was in Ontario, Canada. According to a news report, “Ontario Provincial Police said the
derailment happened near Gogama, Ont., around 2:45 a.m. Saturday morning, with some of the
cars catching fire and others falling into the Mattagami River.”
Environmentalists around the country have been protesting the “bomb trains” for several years
now, but the 100 car unit trains are continuing to roll through hill and dale, towns and cities.
Over a hundred years of the rail carriers influence in the halls of government make sure of this,
up to now. This, despite the fact that we now know that fracked Bakken crude is more explosive
than gasoline. The fireballs that have erupted lately dramatically illustrate this point.
292
As a retired railroad machinist, I have long been aware of the dangerous cargoes that travel by
rail. I still remember the propane car that blew up near my shop while I was working, that
propelled by the explosion, jetted a mile down the track through the departure yard, thankfully
without killing anyone.
Nothing freight-wise from those years I spent on, under and over locomotives compare, however,
to the vast quantities of explosive crude now running down a track probably not too far from you.
So I found this analysis from a retired frontline rail worker and engineer, Bubba Brown,
particularly interesting in its insights into the changes the carriers have made, all done, of course,
in the interests
of maximising profits. In a Railroad Workers United Facebook discussion, Brown remarked:
“I think all of you are trying to make this phenomena more complicated than what I believe it
really is. When I started railroading as a hoghead, there was much emphasis placed on train
handling from the standpoint of controlling slack action. There wasn’t a great push toward fuel
conservation then as now.
Air brakes were used extensively toward this control of slack action in those days largely because
of occupied cabooses, but as a result, reduction of slack action reduced damages to both freight
cars and lading. Heavy slack action occurring at various undulations, causes a downward
pounding and at curves produces a heavy lateral pounding which relates adversely to track
alignment. When multiple cars loaded with sloshing liquids are handled with dynamic braking
and throttle modulation instead of lightly stretching them, their lading takes on a harmonic effect
thereby producing “waves” of slack action which adversely affect track alignment and the
resultant derailments. The same hogheads that can successfully handle a double stack train use
those same principles to operate an oil train (largely due to fuel saving practices) and produce
horrible results. The current population of hogheads have been poorly trained in the use of air
brakes (read non-existent here) toward train handling, with all emphasis placed on fuel
conservation. I predicted when I retired that we’d be witnessing more accidents and more
fatalities stemming from the rail industry’s reluctance to use the air and discipline assessment
because of it, as the hogheads are scared to use the air.
These are my observations and opinions based on 40 years of railroading with about 37 of them
as a hoghead. I offer them up as such and don’t really want an argument.”
And suffice to say, that other engineers in this discussion thread agreed with him. I realize that
the railroad lingo in Brown’s remarks might confuse some people. There are two ways to apply
brakes on a train, the air brakes that run the entire length of the train and dynamic braking, which
reverses the locomotive traction motors, turning them into generators, which slows the
locomotives down and as a result causes the cars to bunch up(slack action). Air brakes, on the
other hand, are applied on the locomotives and the cars together. With the entire train slowed
down by the air brakes, obviously more fuel will be needed to get back to speed. Hence the
railroad’s current directives, with the results that Brown explains. 100 car oil trains are incredibly
heavy, compared to mixed freight or intermodal trains.
293
So its not just oil company and carrier greed for cash generating cargo like fracked oil to blame
for the current disasters, you can also chalk up the railroad’s desire to save just a little more fuel,
at the expense of safety, for the mess we are in. Lets hope environmentalists listen to the rail
workers, starting at the conference next week, for more insights like those of Bubba Brown.
Jon Flanders spent 25 years as a Railroad Machinist, member and past President of IAM 1145.
Steering committee member of Railroad Workers United. Retired. He can be reached
at: [email protected].
March 9, 2015 - Lisa Raitt says Gogama train derailments raise
questions about CN operations
Train in northern Ontario derailment was carrying Alberta crude to Eastern Canada
CBC News Posted: Mar 09, 2015 11:56 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 09, 2015 9:09 PM ET
Transport Minister Lisa Raitt says she's made her concerns known to CN Rail after two
derailments near the community of Gogama, Ont., where crews were still working Monday to put
out fires and clear debris following the most recent derailment on Saturday.
CN Rail said Monday that it was working with Gogama and Mattagami First Nations officials, as
well as provincial and federal investigatory and regulatory officials after the derailment of 38 cars
on a 94-car train. The derailment site is about 110 kilometres southwest of Timmins.
"Fire suppression efforts progressing well as cars cleared from derailment site, which also
facilitates ongoing construction of temp bypass," the company said on Twitter Monday evening.
Saturday's derailment comes not long after the derailment of a CN train in the Gogama area in
February.
"We need to have the Transportation Safety Board tell us what happened there," Raitt told CBC
News on Monday.
The transport minister said she’s asked CN about inspections and its activity in the area.
She said the company has been co-operating with investigators as they try to determine what
happened, but said the recent derailments raise questions.
"It does make you think and it makes you wonder ... operationally, that they have to make sure
what they’re doing is exactly correct," she said.
"That’s a lot of cars and that’s too many derailments, in my opinion, in a short period of time."
The railway said earlier in the day that no air and water quality issues have been identified
following Saturday's incident, and containment booms remain in place downstream of the
derailment site.
294
The Transportation Safety Board has sent investigators to the site of the derailment and oil spill,
which is only 37 kilometres from the location of a derailment last month.
'They could feel it in their chests'
Meanwhile, debate has been renewed over whether rail is a safe way of transporting crude oil.
The cars in Saturday's derailment were all carrying Alberta crude to Eastern Canada.
First Nations and environmentalists are among those expressing alarm.
Chief Walter Naveau of the Mattagami First Nation said his community no longer feels safe after
the third CN derailment in northern Ontario in less than a month. There are concerns over the
effects of smoke inhalation and environmental damage, he said.
"People in the community were feeling the effects of the toxins in the air — respiratory
problems, they could feel it in their chests and their breathing," Naveau said in a phone interview.
CN said residents would likely see smoke rising from the derailment site, but insisted it posed no
threat to people or the environment.
"They may say those things, but why should I trust them?" asked Naveau, adding his community
is also concerned that the river flows into the community's main spawning grounds for fish, in
addition to habitat for other wildlife.
Even though CN said it's taking action to contain any spilled oil and stop it from spreading into
the river system, "anywhere you're going to see a major spill of oil and chemicals onto the ground
you're going to see permanent contamination of the ecosystem nearby," said Adam Scott, climate
and energy program manager for Environmental Defence, a non-profit, non-partisan
environmental group.
"They almost never are able to clean up all of the oil released in a spill like this, and it's much
worse even when there's a direct spill into a river because the oil gets moved down the river and
the chemicals can spread," Scott said.
'Something dramatic' required
Last month, a CN freight train derailed in the same area — 29 cars loaded with crude oil and
petroleum distillates ran off the tracks and caused a fire.
CN said the cars involved in Saturday's derailment had enhanced shielding and harder steel in
accordance with new, improved safety standards.
The TSB said last month the Class 111 tank cars involved in the previous derailment also met the
upgraded standards, but still "performed similarly" to those involved in the devastating train
wreck in Lac-Mégantic, Que., two years ago, which predated the changes.
The TSB said last month's incident demonstrated "the inadequacy" of the new standards and
urged Transport Canada to quickly beef up protection standards.
Transport Canada said it is working with the U.S. to develop new, "more robust" safety standards
for tank cars used to transport flammable liquids.
295
Liberal MPP Glenn Thibeault, who represents the riding of Sudbury, located about 190
kilometres south of Gogama, said Saturday's incident clearly shows that the federal government
must do more to strengthen rail safety regulations.
"The cars involved in this incident are new models, compliant with the latest federal regulations,
yet they still failed to prevent this incident," he said.
Ontario Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca said in a statement that the derailment was
"very concerning" and that he would be raising the matter with Raitt and the railways.
Scott noted an incident like this one is "basically guaranteed to happen again."
"This is not an isolated incident, we've seen several of these kinds of derailments in a month
now," Scott said.
"So until something dramatic is done, we're going to see this continuing over and over again."
The NDP's France Gélinas, who represents Gogama and other Nickel Belt communities in the
Ontario legislature, said the recent derailments have shaken the area and made residents
"nervous" about the railway they depend on for transportation.
"For the people of Gogama, it was a very close one," she said of Saturday's derailment.
"They all said, 'What if it had been two kilometres this way, we wouldn't be there [anymore],"'
she said.
"This is a what-if that will be hard for a lot of people to forget and we need to have substantive
changes so that people in Gogama and throughout the northeast can feel safe again."
March 9, 2015 - Oil train fires reveal problematic safety culture:
Kemp
Mon Mar 9, 2015 9:02am EDT
(John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own)
By John Kemp
(Reuters) - Two more serious derailments and fires involving trains carrying crude oil in the past
week confirm there is a serious problem with the safety culture on North American railroads.
The latest fiery derailments occurred in northern Illinois involving a train operated by BNSF and
northern Ontario involving a train operated by Canadian National Railway.
They come just weeks after serious oil train fires in West Virginia involving a train operated by
CSX and another Canadian National derailment in northern Ontario.
Fortunately, these derailments occurred in sparsely populated areas, but it is only a matter of time
before a train derails in a densely populated urban centre and risks a mass casualty incident.
296
The U.S. Department of Transportation predicts more than 200 crude and ethanol carrying trains
will derail over the next 20 years, including ten in urban areas.
Based on plausible assumptions, at least one of these urban derailments could cause a
catastrophic accident with deaths, injuries, damage to property and environment clean up costing
$6 billion.
The 200-plus predicted incidents will cost more than $18 billion in total, according to the
Department of Transportation ("Oil by rail shipments are playing Russian roulette" Feb 23).
Yet regulators and the industry (including railroads, oil shippers, and oil producers) appear to be
in a state of denial about the seriousness problem and the need for urgency tackling it.
The U.S. Department of Transportation and groups representing the industry have failed to
produce timely and effective response to the spate of train fires.
So it is time for Congress and the White House to step in and impose a solution to enable crude
to be carried safely while protecting communities along the major oil by rail corridors.
MULTIPLE CAUSES
Research has shown serious accidents in any industry almost always have multiple causes and
occur when multiple safety systems fail simultaneously.
The spate of train fires over the last few years have revealed at least inter-related safety problems:
(1) trains are derailing with alarming frequency; (2) tank cars cannot contain their loads when
they come off the rails; and (3) crude oil is much more flammable and hazardous than originally
estimated by the industry and regulators.
The multiple causes of train fires have encouraged industry participants to engage in a blame
game and try to shift the responsibility and costs of solving the problem onto others.
Railroads insist crude is highly dangerous and should be reclassified under the hazardous
materials regulations and carried in strengthened tank cars.
Oil shippers and producers dispute the characterisation of the crude as unusually flammable and
instead insist railroads must do a much better job of keeping trains on the tracks.
FRACTURED RESPONSE
The industry and regulators have responded with a patchwork of measures that have tried to
tackle individual aspects of the problem.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR), representing the major railroad operators, has
introduced speed restrictions and other safeguards for high-hazard flammable trains meant to
reduce the probability of derailments (Circular OT-55-N).
The AAR, together with the Railway Supply Institute's (RSI) Committee on Tank Cars,
representing shippers, has also introduced revised construction standards for new tank cars built
to carry crude oil and ethanol (Circular CPC-1232).
297
For the U.S. government, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Administration (PHMSA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have stepped up safety
inspections to ensure crude has been properly tested and classified under the hazardous materials
regulations.
North Dakota's Industrial Commission, which regulates production in the Bakken, where much
of the oil involved in train fires originated, has brought in new rules requiring the stabilisation of
crude prior to shipment.
And Canada has introduced its own restrictions requiring the accelerated phase out of existing
old DOT-111 tank cars, requiring railroads to carry more insurance, and allowing railroads to
collect higher, safety-related fees for carrying oil.
LEADERSHIP NEEDED
None of these actions individually or collectively has been enough to reduce the risk of
derailments and train fires.
Recent accidents have involved trains travelling slowly well under the new limits prescribed by
OT-55-N, using new and supposedly stronger tank cars prescribed by CPC-1232, and with oil
correctly classified and placarded under the Hazmat Regulations.
The industry's voluntary actions have not done enough to reduce the risk of derailments and train
fires.
New CPC-1232 tank car standards are only a minimal improvement over the old DOT-111
standards they replaced according to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which
investigates the cause of accidents.
NTSB has identified improved tank car safety as one of its top 10 priorities for 2015. Safety
regulators want much tougher tank car standards coupled with slower speed limits and other
measures to keep trains on the tracks.
NTSB wants tank cars to have thicker steel shells than the DOT-111 and CPC-1232 models, fullheight head-shields to protect them against puncturing in collisions, and more protection from the
heat generated by train fires.
NTSB wants trains routed away from densely populated urban areas wherever possible and the
introduction of positive train control technology.
NEW SAFETY CULTURE
But the most important change has nothing to do with train speeds or tank car standards: it is
cultural and must come from the top of the rail industry and the U.S. government.
There is complacency within the industry about the risks posed by crude-carrying trains.
Occasional derailments and fires are seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable cost of the oil boom.
298
This is dangerous and short-sighted. If a train disaster like Lac-Megantic occurred in the heart of
a U.S. city, the political backlash would jeopardise the entire oil-by-rail business.
To safeguard the future of the industry, the squabbling between railroads, shippers and regulators
about who is responsible for train fires, and the costs and benefits of various safety options, must
end.
Instead, railroads, shippers and regulators must embrace a "safety culture" that targets zero train
fires (which is a far cry from the predicted 200 over 20 years). Safety must be made the oil by rail
industry's top priority.
There is a rich literature on what contributes to a good safety culture. But safety culture always
begins at the top with an emphasis on zero avoidable accidents from an organisation's leaders.
The existing approach to writing oil by rail regulations - led by lawyers, lobbyists and inside
safety experts - has demonstrably failed.
It is time to clear them out of the way in favour of a broad new safety strategy agreed between the
chief executives of the railroads, shippers and oil companies as well as the White House and the
Department of Transportation, with appropriate legislation and oversight from Congress.
If the crude by rail industry cannot develop an adequate safety culture on its own, it is time to
impose one from outside. (Editing by William Hardy)
March 9, 2015 - Forget banning oil-by-rail, we need to clean up the
train wreck of railway regulation
Terence Corcoran | March 9, 2015 | Last Updated: Mar 10 12:27 PM ET
More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran
Dispatches from the environmental movement would have us believe we’re living through an
epidemic of oil train derailments. The latest, in Gogama, Ont., is the second in that community.
Others, in West Virginia and Illinois, bring the total to four oil-train crashes in less than a month.
The green headline-grabber went to the U.S. Center for Biological Diversity, which said the oil
and rail industries are “playing Russian roulette with people’s lives.”
That seems a little extreme, although since environmentalists don’t want any oil moving
anywhere by any means of transport whatsoever, the mounting attacks on the rail route are
entirely predictable. On the other hand, the derailment disasters are real enough, with dozens of
tanker cars strewn over landscapes, fires raging and communities put at some risk. Mercifully, no
lives were lost at the four recent derailments.
The surge in oil transport by rail in recent years inevitably created new risks. But there is more to
the oil-by-rail issue than sensational video of exploding oil and gases, 200-foot-high flames and a
tangled pile-up of blackened tank cars. Rather than a ban on oil by rail, as proposed by activists,
299
what North America needs is to clean up the great train wreck of railway regulation that seems to
be standing in the way of safe and efficient rail transport.
It’s easy to mount a soapbox and denounce the railways — something of a national obsession in
Canada. Ottawa can be counted on to simultaneously force the railways to move grain faster
while ordering a slowdown in the movement of oil and other dangerous products. Since all goods
move on more or less the same tracks, the politicians try to have it both ways. Regulators in the
U.S. and Canada are also constantly squabbling over common standards for such essential issues
as tanker car designs.
Recent comments by Hunter Harrison, the CEO of CP Rail, should be something of an eyeopener. Mr. Harrison said last week that the CP Rail board of directors looked at a proposal,
presumably from Mr. Harrison, to get the company out of the transport of oil and other dangerous
products. There’s more money to be made moving clean stuff across the continent in four days
than dangerous stuff in six days. The board, he said, agreed that “we might get out of this
business.” But lawyers took a look and determined that the railway had no such choice under an
existing “common carrier obligation,” a legally binding requirement that railways must carry
whatever product, no matter how dangerous, shippers ask them to carry. “We cannot get around
the common carrier obligation,” said Mr. Harrison.
With little or no choice, the railways are somewhat at the mercy of regulators and politicians who
usually have the ear of far more numerous shippers who claim to be fighting the big, bad
railways. As Canadians have seen, when it comes to shipping grain across Canada, farmers rule.
The oil industry, and others shipping dangerous goods — lacking the populist appeal of farmers
— may have a tougher fight on their hands in getting the government to give them a break.
Mr. Harrison and other rail officials have long called on governments to act to limit the risks
associated with rail transport — risks that government regulations force upon the railways. In a
speech last year in Calgary, Mr. Harrison called on governments and shippers to adopt new
tanker designs. “There’s stuff we’re hauling, and it’s going right through your community, right
by your door, and it’s a whole lot more dangerous than crude.”
But in the end, regulators compromised on the tank car model CPC-1232, the model that
exploded and burst into flames this past weekend at Gogama. Rail officials say new regulations
are coming soon, but have taken far too long to make their way through the Canada-U.S.
regulatory gridlock.
The regulatory regime is also leading to a jerry-rigged liability and insurance structure. Ottawa
has proposed a new mandatory insurance regime that would force shippers to contribute to an
insurance fund to cover the massive potential cost of a major derailment disaster. Railways,
meanwhile, have limited liability because of their common carrier obligation.
Risks obviously abound in the transport of dangerous chemicals, including various forms of
fossil fuel. The regulatory environment is clearly an obstacle to good policy at the moment. But
that doesn’t mean oil by rail should be killed as a transportation option. The surge in oil
shipments is a new development that, in the end, should lead to a new regime that is safe and
efficient. Maybe.
300
http://www.benzinga.com/news/15/03/5308455/oil-train-derailments-muddy-railroad-sectorearnings
March 9, 2015 - Oil Train Derailments Muddy Railroad Sector
Earnings
Laura Brodbeck , Benzinga Staff Writer March 09, 2015 12:28pm
A recent string of oil train derailments in both the U.S. and Canada has created a significant
obstacle for railroad companies as officials take a closer look into the safety of railroad transport.
Train derailments in West Virginia, Illinois and Ontario have raised questions about the safety of
the industry's CPC-1232 tank cars, which were touted as a secure way to carry crude from
Canada to the U.S. when first introduced.
Regulation Rains On Railroad Parade
Railroad companies have been able to avoid strict government regulations regarding their crude
shipments in the past, because the CPC cars were said to be the most puncture-proof cars
available.
However, investigations into recent crashes show that ruptures in the new car models may have
been the cause.
The possibility of stricter and more expensive regulations is now hanging over companies like
Norfolk Southern Corp. NSC 0.29% and Union Pacific Corporation UNP 0.8%, quickly
erasing the gains resulting from the President's veto of the Keystone pipeline plans.
Related Link: Top 4 NASDAQ Stocks In The Railroads Industry
A Double Whammy
While the failure of U.S. senators to override the President's veto was a positive for the railroad
industry, gains were short lived as worries about tougher regulations weighed on earnings in that
sector.
Additionally, many investors are concerned about the cost-effectiveness of the CPC-1232 cars,
which cost the industry around $7 billion to implement.
The cars allowed railroads to avoid costly regulations, but the money spent updating train cars
may have been a waste as investigations into the crashes could prompt U.S. officials to
implement new regulations anyway.
301
March 10, 2015 - Spate of oil train derailments raises safety
concerns, says Federal Railroad administrator
By AP | 10 Mar, 2015, 11.59AM IS
Spate of oil train derailments raises safety concerns, says Federal Railroad administrator
WASHINGTON: Four trains hauling crude oil have derailed in the US and Canada since midFebruary, rupturing tank cars, spilling their contents, polluting waterways and igniting
spectacular fires that burned for days.
The derailments have deepened safety concerns that if an oil-train accident were to occur in a
populated area, the results could be disastrous.
"Recent incidents have proven once again that derailments of trains carrying this product are
dangerous, and can be catastrophic," said Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration.
The Associated Press asked rail and hazardous materials safety experts about what is causing
these accidents and what can be done to stop them.
Where have derailments taken place?
The recent spate of accidents began Feb. 14 when a 100-car Canadian National Railway train
hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than
48 hours later, a 109-car CSX oil train derailed and caught fire near Mount Carbon, West
Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation.
On Thursday, 21 cars of a 105-car Burlington Northern-Santa Fe train hauling oil from the
Bakken region of North Dakota derailed about 3 miles (5 kilometers) outside Galena, Illinois, a
town of about 3,000 in the state's northwest corner. On Saturday, a 94-car Canadian National
Railway crude oil train derailed about 3 miles (5 kilometers) outside the Northern Ontario town
of Gogama and destroyed a bridge. The accident was only 23 miles (37kilometers) from the Feb.
14th derailment.
The worst such accident in recent years involved a runaway oil train that derailed in LacMegantic, Quebec, just across the US-Canada border from Maine, on July 6, 2013. The resulting
explosions and fire killed 47 people and destroyed the town's business district.
Why are there so many of these accidents?
The number of accidents is going up because the oil boom in the US and Canada has
dramatically increased the amount of oil shipped by rail. Last year, railroads moved 493,126 tank
cars of crude oil, compared to 407,761 in 2013. That's up from just 9,500 cars in 2008 before the
hydraulic fracturing boom took off in the Bakken region of North Dakota, Montana and Canada,
as well as other areas.
302
Most of the accidents in the US, as well as the Lac-Megantic derailment, involved trains hauling
Bakken crude. Government tests show Bakken crude is more volatile than most crude oil. The
American Petroleum Institute says Bakken is no more volatile than other light, sweet crudes.
What causes them?
Many factors can cause an accident, from too great a speed to operator fatigue. We won't know
the cause of the most recent ones until investigations are complete, but weather may be a factor.
When it is very cold, as it has been across much of North America, steel rails and train car wheels
can contract and become brittle. If the steel has a manufacturing flaw, no matter how small, it can
spread rapidly in the cold weather.
"You get real cold weather like this and a rail can just snap ... a wheel will shatter like a piece of
glass," said Ed Dobranetski, a former National Transportation Safety Board rail accidents
investigator.
What is the government doing to prevent them?
US officials are working on new regulations to increase the safety of train operations and of the
special tank cars that carry oil. Draft regulations were sent to the White House budget office for
review on Feb. 4. Among other things, the proposal includes tank cars that have thicker shells
and electronically controlled brakes that stop cars at the same time rather than sequentially.
"There will not be a silver bullet for solving this problem," Feinberg said. "This situation calls for
an all-of-the-above approach _ one that addresses the product itself, the tank car it is being
carried in, and the way the train is being operated."
US and Canadian officials are trying to coordinate changes because trains cross back and forth
across the border. So far, there is no consensus on a timetable for phasing out older, less-safe tank
cars.
What can railroads do to prevent accidents?
Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous
materials, said an array of new technologies patented with the last decade can warn of defects and
identify trouble spots before accidents happen.
For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect
deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties
to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said.
303
March 10, 2015 - America is literally on fire: How out-of-control oil
spills are destroying our population centers
Disasters are raging with such force and regularity that firefighters have to give up. Welcome to
the new reality
David Dayen Tuesday, Mar 10, 2015 05:30 AM CST
It’s a good bet that someplace in North America is on fire right now, raging so out of control that
officials have to let it burn itself out. And it happened because highly flammable oil was placed
on a train for shipping, and something went drastically wrong. Because so much oil is transported
by rail these days, the probabilities of catastrophe have elevated significantly. We haven’t ruined
a major population center yet only through dumb luck; and we haven’t cracked down on this
treacherous practice only because of the enormous power of the industry.
Last Thursday, 21 oil tanker cars derailed near Galena, Illinois, and five of them burned for three
days. Firefighters gave up combating it because of the intensity of the heat. Tanks tumbled into a
bank along the Mississippi River, threatening the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge. The EPA said the fire posed an “imminent and substantial danger” to the river. On
Saturday, another train caught fire near Gogama, Ontario, damaging a bridge and sending five
tank cars into the water. A similar train fire occurred on Feb. 14 near the Ontario town of
Timmis, and on Feb. 16 in the almost perfectly named town of Mount Carbon, West Virginia. In
all, over the past five weeks there have been five crude oil train derailments, threatening
ecosystems and human health. You can follow all the “action” at the DOT-111 Reader.
The industry estimates that 9,500 carloads of oil moved along rail lines in 2008. In 2014 that
number jumped to 500,000 carloads, transporting 15 billion gallons of crude. By some estimates
that could double this year. Moreover, harder-to-reach oil, from the Bakken shale of North
Dakota to the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, is more flammable and explosive, igniting at much
lower temperatures, according to U.S. regulators.
The exponential increase of shipping more dangerous product just magnifies the risk. These
trains – or bombs on wheels, if you prefer – pass through big cities like Philadelphia, Seattle,
Newark and Chicago. A derailment in a big city would be very destructive; when the relatively
tiny town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec (population 5,932), suffered a runaway train explosion in its
downtown in 2013, 47 people died and $1.2 billion in property was damaged, making it the worst
train disaster in Canada since 1864. So continuing to run these trains through major cities is like
lighting a fuse to dynamite.
Oil companies pledged a commitment to safety by improving the quality of the tank cars,
replacing thin-skinned DOT-111 cars with a new model called CPC-1232. But that hasn’t
mattered a bit; the Galena derailment involved these allegedly safer CPC-1232s, as have several
other recent tragedies.
304
Those who respond to oil train derailments by claiming that the Keystone XL pipeline would
solve the problem neglect the fact that a pipeline would not be able to carry even half of what
flows from the Bakken region. More important, because of the collapse in oil prices, new
infrastructure like a pipeline has ceased to make economic sense, relative to the existing
infrastructure of transporting by rail.
Perhaps the scariest part of all of this is the perilous financial state of the oil industry today,
which if anything will increase the danger. Energy companies are rapidly going bankrupt, as they
cannot service debt with lower oil revenue. Companies on the edge will have to cut costs to keep
afloat, and when costs are at issue, traditionally safety goes out the window.
What can be done about these massive explosions-in-waiting currently traipsing around the
country? The Department of Transportation did propose new rules last July, to phase out the old
DOT-111 cars, increase speed limit requirements and improve brakes. They plan to finalize those
rules in May, after missing an initial deadline. But DoT’s proposal did not include a rule that oil
companies remove explosive gases, including excess natural gas, from their shipments. A state
version of that rule in North Dakota is supposed to take effect April 1.
According to a report in Reuters, the White House considered a provision to remove these
volatile gases (known in the industry as “light ends”), but ultimately punted, letting North Dakota
rules govern. Federal officials were concerned about their jurisdiction to dictate treatment of light
ends. But critics believe the federal government relying on North Dakota – a conservative state
not exactly known for its strict adherence to regulations – increases the risk of shipping oil by
rail. That’s especially concerning when you consider that the trains travel all across the country,
and that some Bakken shale comes from neighboring states like Montana. For their part, the
White House denied they held off on improving oil train safety.
Sen. Chuck Schumer urged federal regulators to mandate the removal of light ends from crude
oil in a letter last week, and Dick Durbin, whose state was charred by the Galena disaster, called
for strengthening tank cars. There are indications that the Galena tank cars, though the stronger
CPC-1232, were “unjacketed,” without insulated steel shells.
The DoT regulations will finally emerge from the Office of Management and Budget’s internal
process in May. Officials at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which analyzes
federal regulations for OMB, held at least 10 meetings with the oil and rail industries last spring,
after initially receiving the rules. That includes meetings with the biggest oil-by-rail company,
BNSF, a division of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Basically, the oil companies point to
track maintenance, and the rail companies point to inadequate tank cars. Whatever doesn’t cost
them money is what they blame.
Increased domestic oil production is always depicted as an unalloyed good, with no discussion of
the costs, like turning trains into bombs nationwide. There’s reason to believe that no tank car is
safe enough to carry something this volatile, and that the risks exceed what the public should
reasonably bear. DoT has nonchalantly predicted 10 derailments a year on oil trains, with billions
in damages. If anything that’s an underestimate.
305
One reason the planet continues to boil is that oil companies have been allowed to externalize
their costs onto government. Oil appears “cheaper” than solar or wind, because these costs never
come into account. But solar power doesn’t blow up while being carried through a major city on
a train. And if we want to seriously talk about what kind of energy we can afford in the future,
that has to enter the conversation.
March 10, 2015 - Wisconsin legislators call for increased crude-byrail oversight
March 10, 2015
Sen. Baldwin and Rep. Kind are calling for the U.S. DOT to finalize rules governing crude oil
trains, like this Canadian Pacific train at Reeseville, Wis.
Drew Halverson
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin and U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, both of Wisconsin,
have sent a letter to President Obama urging his Administration to issue final guidance to address
oil train safety. The letter also includes Baldwin and Kind’s specific proposals to strengthen the
recommended rules after recent accidents, including one last week in neighboring Galena, Ill.,
have demonstrated the need for improvements.
“Oil train accidents are increasing at an alarming rate as a result of the increased oil production
from the Bakken formation in North Dakota. Congress has provided additional funding to study
safer tank cars, hire more track inspectors, and repair rail infrastructure. We urge your
Administration to use this funding, along with its regulatory powers, to improve oil train safety
as quickly as possible,” Baldwin and Kind write. “The danger facing Wisconsin communities
located near rail lanes has materialized quickly. Just a few years ago, an oil train in the state was
a rare sight. Today, more than 40 oil trains a week pass through Wisconsin cities and towns,
many more than 100 tank cars long. It is clear that the increase in oil moving on the rails has
corresponded with an uptick in oil train derailments.”
In January, Baldwin and Kind urged the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to finalize a rule to increase oil tank car safety
after the agencies missed their deadline. The agencies were required by law to have completed
the rule by Jan. 15, 2015.
In September 2014, Baldwin and Kind provided public comments on the proposed rule in a letter
to DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx and PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman writing, “As
more and more volatile crude oil moves through Wisconsin via rail, it is critical that appropriate
safety measures are in place to reduce the risk of deadly accidents.”
Baldwin has advocated for additional funding for the design, testing, and evaluation of safer tank
cars, which was included in the bipartisan appropriations bill passed in December 2014. That
legislation also provided grants for track improvements on oil train routes and first responder
306
training for rail hazmat accidents.
Last month, Baldwin joined North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp to introduce the RESPONSE
Act, a bill to improve emergency preparedness and training for first responders and provide
needed support to help emergency personnel better respond to hazardous incidents, such as crude
oil train derailments and other hazmat situations.
March 10, 2015 - Time to call them Obama trains
Rob Port | Shale Plays Media Contributor
There was another oil train derailment this week – this time near Galena, Illinois – producing
another explosion and smoke cloud that’s being plastered all over the media.
It was the third such derailment in three weeks.
Left-wing activists have taken to using the term “bomb trains” and are now blaming public
officials for not seeking regulatory retribution for the derailments from the oil industry. Which is
certainly convenient, for them, I suppose.
They think the answer to oil train derailments is to stop producing oil.
But really, it’s President Barack Obama who has created this situation for them to exploit. Not so
much because the administration has balked at tougher regulations for oil-by-rail shipments, as
Reuters reported recently, but because Obama’s intransigence on energy infrastructure has
created a shipping bottleneck that has left our rails overrun.
As oil production has boomed in America, so has oil by rail shipments as this graph from the
American Association of Railroads Shows:
307
The reason for this is that pipeline infrastructure wasn’t in place to take oil from plays like North
Dakota’s Bakken oil fields and bring it to market. So, while we’ve been waiting for the pipelines
to catch up, oil producers have relied on rail.
But it’s clear that our rail infrastructure wasn’t ready for this explosion (sorry, bad word) in oil
shipments. We badly need alternatives, but that’s where the environmental zealots come in. Led
by our zealot-in-chief Barack Obama they’re intent on ensuring that pipeline infrastructure can’t
catch up.
It’s not just Obama’s intransigence on the Keystone XL pipeline. While the 100,000 barrels per
day of capacity that pipeline would be important infrastructure for the North Dakota oil fields,
it’s not a silver bullet that would solve this problem.
But the blockade on Keystone is symbolic of the larger fight over pipelines.
The Sandpiper line, which would run from Tioga, North Dakota, through Minnesota down to
Wisconsin is currently being blocked by activists in Minnesota. A pipeline taking oil from the
Bakken north into Canada will likely face the same obstacles from the federal government that
the Keystone pipeline has.
The activists don’t want pipelines, but they also gleefully report every new oil train derailment,
leveraging them into calls for action on further restrictions to oil production.
Which is really their goal. Choking off oil production. They don’t want pipelines, and that means
more oil trains on our creaking rail infrastructure.
Every time an oil train derails and explodes we ought to be pointing our fingers at President
Barack Obama and others who have created this infrastructure bottleneck in the first place.
308
March 10, 2015 - Spate of oil train derailments raises safety
concerns
By JOAN LOWY 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Four trains hauling crude oil have derailed in the U.S. and Canada
since mid-February, rupturing tank cars, spilling their contents, polluting waterways and igniting
spectacular fires that burned for days.
The derailments have deepened safety concerns that if an oil-train accident were to occur in a
populated area, the results could be disastrous.
"Recent incidents have proven once again that derailments of trains carrying this product are
dangerous, and can be catastrophic," said Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration.
The Associated Press asked rail and hazardous materials safety experts about what is causing
these accidents and what can be done to stop them.
Where have derailments taken place?
The recent spate of accidents began Feb. 14 when a 100-car Canadian National Railway train
hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than
48 hours later, a 109-car CSX oil train derailed and caught fire near Mount Carbon, West
Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation.
On Thursday, 21 cars of a 105-car Burlington Northern-Santa Fe train hauling oil from the
Bakken region of North Dakota derailed about 3 miles outside Galena, Illinois, a town of about
3,000 in the state's northwest corner. On Saturday, a 94-car Canadian National Railway crude oil
train derailed about 3 miles outside the Northern Ontario town of Gogama and destroyed a
bridge. The accident was only 23 miles from the Feb. 14th derailment.
The worst such accident in recent years involved a runaway train derailed in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec, just across the U.S.-Canada border from Maine, on July 6, 2013. The resulting
explosions and fire killed 47 people and destroyed the town's business district.
Why are there so many of these accidents?
The number of accidents is going up because the oil boom in the U.S. and Canada has
dramatically increased the amount of oil shipped by rail. Last year, railroads moved 493,126 tank
cars of crude oil, compared to 407,761 in 2013. That's up from just 9,500 cars in 2008 before the
hydraulic fracturing boom took off in the Bakken region of North Dakota, Montana and Canada,
as well as other areas.
Most of the accidents in the U.S., as well as the Lac-Megantic derailment, involved trains hauling
Bakken crude. Government tests show Bakken crude is more volatile than most crude oil. The
American Petroleum Institute says Bakken is no more volatile than other light, sweet crudes.
309
What causes them?
Many factors can cause an accident, from too great a speed to operator fatigue. We won't know
the cause of the most recent ones until investigations are complete, but weather may be a factor.
When it is very cold, as it has been across much of North America, steel rails and train car
wheels can contract and become brittle. If the steel has a manufacturing flaw, no matter how
small, it can spread rapidly in the cold weather.
"You get real cold weather like this and a rail can just snap ... a wheel will shatter like a piece of
glass," said Ed Dobranetski, a former National Transportation Safety Board rail accidents
investigator.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said investigators have recovered a section of broken
rail containing a rail joint and a broken wheel "that are of interest" in the Feb. 14 derailment.
What is the government doing to prevent them?
U.S. officials are working on new regulations to increase the safety of train operations and of the
special tank cars that carry oil. Draft regulations were sent to the White House budget office for
review on Feb. 4. Among other things, the proposal includes tank cars that have thicker shells
and electronically controlled brakes that stop cars at the same time rather than sequentially.
"There will not be a silver bullet for solving this problem," Feinberg said. "This situation calls for
an all-of-the-above approach — one that addresses the product itself, the tank car it is being
carried in, and the way the train is being operated."
U.S. and Canadian officials are trying to coordinate changes because trains cross back and forth
across the border. So far, there is no consensus on a timetable for phasing out older, less-safe
tank cars.
What can railroads do to prevent accidents?
Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous
materials, said an array of new technologies patented with the last decade can warn of defects and
identify trouble spots before accidents happen.
For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect
deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties
to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said.
"Given the sheer volume of hazardous materials and crude oil, we simply can't afford to have
these rail cars come off the track," McCown said.
Follow Joan Lowy on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/AP_Joan_Lowy
310
<< Rail News Home: Federal Legislation & Regulation
Rail News: Federal Legislation & Regulation
March 10, 2015 - Sen. Baldwin, Rep. Kind urge Obama to issue
crude-oil train standards
3/10/2015
U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) have asked President
Barack Obama to take immediate action on a final set of safety rules for crude-oil trains.
Their letter expressed frustration after the Obama administration missed a Jan. 15 deadline to
release final rules that would address recent crude-oil train accidents.
"Oil train accidents are increasing at an alarming rate as a result of the increased oil production
from the Bakken formation in North Dakota," the lawmakers wrote. "Congress has provided
additional funding to study safer tank cars, hire more track inspectors, and repair rail
infrastructure. We urge your administration to use this funding, along with its regulatory powers,
to improve oil train safety as quickly as possible."
The U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration first issued a draft of rules addressing oil-train safety in July 2014, but have not
yet issued the final rules. The agencies were required by law to complete the rules by Jan. 15, the
lawmakers said.
Baldwin and Kind cited poor rail infrastructure as among the primary reasons for the recent spate
of derailments in the U.S., and they urged the Federal Railroad Administration to increase
inspections along oil train routes.
March 10, 2015 - Trains in Canada derailments carried synthetic
crude for Valero
TORONTO, March 10 Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:56pm EDT
(Reuters) - The two oil trains that derailed and burst into flames in recent weeks in northern
Ontario were both carrying synthetic crude to Valero Energy Corp's refinery near Quebec City,
the U.S.-based company said on Tuesday.
311
Saturday's CN Rail derailment came less than a month after another CN train carrying oil went
off the tracks and ignited in northern Ontario. The railway had said both were carrying crude
from Alberta, but declined to give their exact destination.
"We take safety very seriously, so we're concerned anytime there's an incident," said Valero
spokesman Bill Day. "Despite the number of rail incidents recently, it is very rare for cargo not to
be delivered to its destination safely."
Day said all of the rail companies Valero works with, including CN Rail, have good safety
records.
Synthetic crude is produced from Alberta's oil sands in upgrader plants, and usually commands a
premium to conventional crudes because it is lighter and easier to refine into valuable byproducts
such as gasoline.
Valero's Jean Gaulin refinery is in Levis, across the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City.
In May 2013, the company said it would build a rail off-loading facility at the Jean Gaulin
refinery so it could start using Western Canadian crude rather than relying on pricier imports.
The company told Reuters it would take light, sweet Western Canadian crude rather than heavier
oil sands crude.
Shipments of North American crude to the refinery ramped up early last year. On a July earnings
call, the company said North American grades made up 83 percent of the refinery's feedstock in
the second quarter of 2014, up from 45 percent in the first quarter and 8 percent higher than a
year earlier.
Separately on Tuesday, CN spokesman Jim Feeny said the train that derailed in February had
been carrying petroleum distillates in addition to synthetic crude.
"The contents of the tank cars are a subject of interest and the TSB will be testing the contents to
determine what they were," said John Cottreau, spokesman for Canada's Transportation Safety
Board, which is investigating the incidents.
In a note to shippers on Tuesday, CN said a temporary bypass track would likely be completed by
late afternoon, reopening its main line in northern Ontario. (Reporting by Allison Martell in
Toronto, and Scott Haggett and Nia Williams in Calgary; Editing by Alan Crosby)
312
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 11:45am
Council of Canadians
Contact:
Dylan Penner, Media Officer
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 249
E-mail: [email protected]
March 10, 2015 - Council of Canadians Calls for Immediate Halt to
Crude Shipments After Derailments and Explosions Near Gogama,
Ontario
ONTARIO - The Council of Canadians is calling on the federal government to immediately halt
rail shipments of crude oil in Canada following a series of derailments and explosions. These
incidents all involved new rail tank cars promoted by federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt as
being safer than those that exploded in Lac Mégantic, killing 47 people.
“Clearly the new tank cars are not safe enough to transport such dangerous and explosive cargo
as crude oil and diluted bitumen,” said Mark Calzavara, Ontario, Québec and Nunavut organizer
for The Council of Canadians. "It's time to put people's lives ahead of profits, and for the
government to stop allowing unsafe trains to travel through our communities, neighbourhoods
and environment."
Crude oil and diluted bitumen shipments by train have increased dramatically in the last few
years with the glut of oil production in the tar sands of Alberta and the Bakken oil fields of
Saskatchewan and North Dakota. In 2009, 500 carloads of crude oil were shipped by rail in
Canada compared to 160,000 carloads in 2013. This drastic increase in volume has not been
matched with increased inspection capacity or any other oversight.
“Is the federal government waiting for another Lac Megantic disaster before it takes real action?
These shipments are going through major populated areas on a daily basis where emergency
responders are unprepared for accidents. They need special training and equipment, including
massive quantities of fire-fighting foam to put out crude oil fires,” said Calzavara. “There is no
justification for putting so many lives at risk.”
###
Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada’s leading social action organization,
mobilizing a network of 60 chapters across the country.
313
Home
March 10, 2015 - Bill seeks better training for responders to oil train
crashes
March 10, 2015
Washington – A Senate committee has unanimously passed a bill aimed at improving training for
first responders to oil train crashes and other railroad hazardous materials incidents.
The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), comes in the wake of a series of
high-profile oil train crashes in North Dakota and throughout the country.
The Railroad Emergency Services Preparedness, Operational Needs and Safety Evaluation
(RESPONSE) Act would establish a panel featuring representatives from federal agencies,
emergency response units, technical experts and private industry.
Heitkamp said the group would provide a set of recommendations within one year. It would
assess a variety of topics, including:

Quality of training for local first responders, especially for those who work in small
communities near railroads

Funding levels as they relate to training first responders for oil train crashes and other rail
hazmat incidents

Establishment of a train incident database

Accessibility of relevant, timely information for local emergency responders
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill March 4.
As of press time, the full Senate had yet to vote on it.
Senator Heitkamp’s Railroad Emergency Services Preparedness,
Operational Needs, and Safety Evaluation (RESPONSE) Act
According to the Association of American Railroads, the number of railcars carrying crude oil on
major freight railroads in the U.S. grew by more than 4,100 percent between 2008 and 2013 and
continued to increase in 2014. Due to the potential risks of a derailment associated with increased
crude oil transported by rail in North Dakota and across the country, there is a need to bolster the
training, coordination and capability of our Nation’s first responders to hazardous materials
incidents that may occur on the national rail system. We know that many big cities, states and the
314
Federal government have the training, capability and resources to respond to a hazmat incident
on our railways.
However, for the first few hours, the closest response is frequently from our small-town
firefighters, police officers and medical personnel. We saw this very clearly in December 2013
during the derailment of a train carrying crude oil near Casselton, North Dakota – a town of
nearly 2,500 people. The Casselton firefighters were the first to respond. In February of 2015, a
train carrying crude oil derailed outside of Montgomery, West Virginia. Local first responders
evacuated hundreds of families and ordered the temporary shutdown of a nearby water treatment
facility, fearing contamination of the water supply.
Less than five years ago, a small number of oil cars were mixed in with other commodities on
trains traveling through our communities a few times per day, mitigating the risk of a significant
incident.
Now, given the energy boom in North Dakota and the United States, and the heavy reliance on
rail as a mode of transportation, these small communities are seeing up to nine trains come
through per day with more than 100 linked crude oil cars per train. We must provide our small
cities and local first responders with proper training and resources so that, if needed, they can
respond appropriately to derailments, spills, and other dangerous situations resulting from a
crude-by-rail or hazardous material derailment in their communities.
Senator Heidi Heitkamp’s RESPONSE Act would establish a subcommittee under FEMA’s
National Advisory Council to address these issues. The RESPONSE Subcommittee would be
tasked with bringing together all the relevant agencies, emergency responders, technical experts
and the private sector for a review of training, resources, best practices and unmet needs related
to emergency responders to railroad hazmat incidents. All flammable hazmat response to railroad
incidents would be within the scope of the Subcommittee, but, given the potential increased risk
associated with a derailment involving delivery of crude oil, there is a particular focus on crude
oil transport by rail.
Upon formation, the Subcommittee would evaluate and provide recommendations within 12
months on emergency responder training and resource allocation. These include addressing:
hazardous materials incidents, with a particular focus on local emergency responders and small
communities near railroads;
to training local emergency responders for rail
hazardous materials incidents, with a particular focus on local emergency responders and small
communities;
emergency responders and how to increase the rate of access to the individual responder in
existing or emerging communications technology;
stationary facility emergency response plans;
315
responders
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bill-would-mandate-larger-crew-on-oil-trains/
March 10, 2015 - Bill would mandate larger crew on oil trains
Originally published March 10, 2015 at 7:38 pm Updated March 11, 2015 at 1:46 pm
The oil transportation-safety legislation passed Monday by the state Senate could set a
nationwide precedent by requiring railroad workers in the rear of oil trains.
By Joseph O’Sullivan Hal Bernton Seattle Times staff reporters
OLYMPIA — Washington’s Republican-controlled Senate could set a national precedent with a
bill passed Monday night that would require up to two railroad workers in the rear of trains
carrying crude oil and other hazardous cargo.
Currently, BNSF Railway, the largest freight hauler in Washington, is not required to carry rear
brakemen in any of the 28 states where it operates, according to Gus Melonas, a BNSF
spokesman.
Railroad union officials have maintained that crude-oil trains — which can exceed 100 cars and
stretch for more than a mile — need more staffing. But foes of the proposal say the language is
so broad that more workers would be mandated on other trains, like those shipping fertilizer in
Eastern Washington.
The provision comes from an amendment to the bill, SB 5057, requiring trains carrying 20 cars
or more of hazardous materials such as Bakken crude to have at least one worker positioned in
the rear.
If the train has more than 50 such cars, two workers would have to be stationed there.
The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, and supported by enough
Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate to pass. It initially was introduced as a separate bill,
SB 5697, which has the support of both Democrats and Republicans, but has gone nowhere in the
Senate.
With the passage of the amendment, the staffing provisions might become part of any
compromise between the Senate and the Democrat-controlled House, which is working on its
own proposal.
“Now, it’s part of the conversation,” said state Sen. Mark Miloscia, R-Federal Way.
316
Increase of oil trains
The Senate’s action came after a bad month for tanker-train accidents. Since Feb. 14, four tanker
trains — two in Canada and two in the United States — have seen cars derail and catch fire, and
the accidents have helped keep a spotlight on safety issues.
Officials in Washington state have been struggling on how to improve oversight of the volatile
Bakken shale crude oil shipped from the Northern Plains to West Coast refineries.
For much of the past year, up to 19 of these tanker trains moved through parts of Washington
each week, including through downtown sections of Seattle and Spokane.
Adding one or two brakemen in the rear can help spot trouble before it happens, or assist in
decoupling train cars should a derailment occur, according to railroad union officials.
If passed, the provision would set a national precedent and could build support for similar laws in
other states, according to Herb Krohn, the state legislative director for SMART-Transportation
Division
“This would be a landmark,” said Krohn, whose union represents some 2,000 rail workers in
Washington state.
The provision is supported by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, which
monitors rail safety in the state. Melonas, the BNSF Railway spokesman, declined to comment
on the amendment.
Two Republican lawmakers, however, have criticized the amendment.
Its language is written so the staffing rules would apply to all hazardous-materials trains — not
just those shipping North Dakota crude — according to Senate Majority Leader Mark Schoesler,
R-Ritzville.
That would include shorter rail lines that ferry fertilizers like anhydrous ammonia to farms across
the state, according to Schoesler.
“The short lines are a completely different creature than the long lines,” he said. “There’s some
collateral damage in here that we need to consider in this.”
Miloscia says he’s willing to compromise on the language, adding, “We’ve got to bring the
railroads and businesses together on this issue.”
Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale and main sponsor of the bill, said issues of staffing should stay
between the rail workers and their employers.
The amendment, however, “doesn’t stop the bill from going forward because the oil-by-rail
legislation is so important,” said Ericksen. “But we’re continuing working on it.”
317
SB 5057 would require the state to review oil-spill response plans, give grants to local emergency
responders and convene a panel to determine whether tug escorts are needed for oil vessels in
Grays Harbor and on the Columbia River.
Ericksen’s bill also would extend a barrel tax collected on oil that comes to Washington by train,
with the money going to an oil-spill response fund.
Current staffing
Typically, oil trains are pushed from the rear by an additional locomotive that is unstaffed. So
rather than bring back cabooses, the additional workers could ride in the rear locomotives of
these trains.
A BNSF train already has two crew members — an engineer and a conductor — positioned at the
front of a train, according to Melonas. They are assisted by ground crews that inspect trains as
they move along the rail, as well as automated systems set along the line that can detect dragging
equipment, shifting loads or other signs of trouble.
“There is obviously a great deal of attention on these unit trains, and all eyes are focused on them
24/7,” Melonas said.
While there are no federal staffing mandates, there is a proposed federal rule to require two
people on all crude-oil trains.
One Washington railroad engineer who has worked on crude-oil trains said he has yet to have
any tense moments on them. But the current crews and motion detectors can still miss problems,
according to the engineer, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation by an employer.
Since the trains may stretch for more than a mile, the engineer said, he rarely sees all the cars
when he looks back from the front locomotive.
“You are always trying to do the best job of handling the train,” said the engineer. But, “it’s
always in the back of your mind that when you’re running an oil train you’re running a bomb.”
Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.Joseph O'Sullivan: 360-2368268 or [email protected]. On Twitter @OlympiaJoeHal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or
[email protected].
March 10, 2015 - State leaders disagree on rail oil safety plans
By Don Davis on Mar 10, 2015 at 11:26 p.m.
318
ST. PAUL — There is no overall agreement on how to prevent Minnesota oil train explosions.
Democrats want to raise railroad taxes $100 million to improve oil train safety. Republicans balk
at higher taxes and say more information is needed before drawing up a solution.
Assistant House Minority Leader Paul Marquart, of Dilworth, and Rep. Frank Hornstein, of
Minneapolis, along with Democratic colleagues, on Tuesday released their plans to expand the
property tax to railroad cars and to increase assessments on railroads. It is a plan similar to that of
Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton.
Republicans, who control the House, are expected to release their transportation plan soon, but
House Transportation Chairman Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, said more information is needed before
a comprehensive rail safety plan is written.
“This is a huge, huge issue,” said Marquart, who lives a half mile from tracks carrying five to
seven oil trains a day and whose high school classroom where he teaches is two blocks from the
tracks.
The entire Dilworth community, where Marquart once was mayor, is within the half-mile danger
zone of the tracks, Marquart said. “We have to make intersections and crossings safer.”
The Democrats propose increasing assessments on the four largest Minnesota railroads —
including BNSF and Canadian Pacific railway companies, which carry most of the oil — to
provide $32 million that would be used to improve railroad crossings. Changing the law to
charge property tax on rail cars would provide the state $20 million a year for crossing
improvements and give local governments $45 million to use however they want.
Marquart and Hornstein emphasized the need to improve crossings, although none of the past
five weeks’ oil train derailments and fires they mentioned in Iowa, West Virginia, Illinois and
Canada occurred near crossings.
Kelly noticed that crossings were not blamed for the fiery derailments.
“I believe we need to understand the problem more,” Kelly said, although he agreed that many
crossings are dangerous or cause traffic congestion and should be improved. “I don’t think we
fully understand the extent of the problem and how to solve it.”
Crossing improvements could be funded under the transportation bill he plans to announce soon,
Kelly said. However, he added, a solution to oil train safety may not come until next year.
“It is our responsibility to deal with it,” Kelly said, adding that the answer is not just taxing
railroads more when a solution is not known.
Railroad lobbyist John Apitz said that not only is the Democratic plan a
$100 million tax increase on railroads, at least some of it may violate federal law dealing with
taxing railroads. He said if the legislation were to pass, railroads “absolutely” would take the
state to federal court.
319
Also, he said, the new taxes come at a time when railroads are spending money to improve their
Minnesota tracks to reduce congestion.
BNSF alone plans to spend about $500 million this year on its Minnesota property, much of it
along the line from Moorhead to the Twin Cities that carries much of the oil.
Hornstein said Minnesota cannot wait to deal with crude oil being shipped from North Dakota’s
Bakken oil region and from southern Canada.
“We are at the crossroads of oil transportation by rail,” Hornstein said.
He mentioned a federal report predicting more than 200 crude oil and ethanol-carrying trains will
derail in the next two decades, with 10 in urban areas. Total cost to recover from the derailments
would be more than $18 billion, the U.S. Department of Transportation predicted.
With railroads earning ever-increasing profits, Hornstein and Marquart said, they should pay for
safety improvements.
The Democratic plans, Hornstein said, are “asking the railroad to pay their fair share. ... This
should not be a cost to taxpayers.”
What started a year ago as just an oil safety debate quickly expanded to include traffic problems
when Dayton began a series of rail safety summits and local officials complained about rail
crossings being blocked for long periods.
Marquart said Moorhead officials are concerned that trains can block crossings in that city four to
eight hours a day, making it difficult for police, firefighters and ambulance workers to respond to
emergencies.
March 11, 2015 - Keystone isn’t the only pipeline proposal out there
As XL languishes in political controversy, new pipeline projects gain ground in Canada and
Alaska.
Sarah Tory March 11, 2015 Web Exclusive
Last Wednesday, the U.S. Senate failed to override President Obama’s veto of legislation
approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline, leaving the controversial project’s fate in the president’s
hands. Obama has said he will make a final decision once the State Department finishes its
assessment of whether or not the pipeline is in the national interest.
While the impact that Keystone would have on the climate, the economy and the communities it
passes through should not be underestimated, some experts think that the amount of public
attention the pipeline has received over the past six plus years has been a distraction from other,
equally important issues related to North America’s energy boom.
The Alberta Tar Sands cover an area roughly the size of Florida and contain one of the largest
remaining deposits in the world. Developing this resource is driving new pipeline projects in
Canada and the United States.
320
Carl Weimer, director of Bellingham-based nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust, thinks that the
intense focus on Keystone has taken the wind out of conversations around safety issues at the 2.5
million miles of already-existing pipelines as well as for the new ones being proposed. “In the
past, pipeline safety has been pretty bipartisan,” Weimer says. But Keystone has polarized the
discussion. “Either you’re for oil or against it,” he added.
Now, Weimer says, the rest of the safety discussions are being lumped into the Keystone debate,
stalling the kind of progress that could have prevented accidents like the recent spill from an oil
pipeline in the Yellowstone River. Plus, all the talk of pipelines being safer than oil trains misses
the bigger point, Weimer says: Without stronger regulations requiring, for instance, better
placement of valves and more robust leak detection methods, more pipelines won’t necessarily
mean safer oil transport.
In addition to hijacking the conversation about pipeline safety, Keystone has been a lightning rod
for criticism from climate activists, who argue that building the pipeline will spur even greater
production of dirty tar sands oil, which will add more carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Yet
proponents argue that Canada will find other ways of transporting its oil, even if Keystone isn’t
built.
“The Alberta oil will find its way to market, which is why the whole Keystone thing is
misguided,” says Rick Rogers, the director of the Alaska Resource Development Council, a trade
group that represents Alaskan industries.
Now, with the possibility looming that Obama will kill Keystone, and the few existing pipelines
stretched to capacity (even with the slump in oil prices), the Canadians are desperate to get their
most lucrative resource to market. “Our province needs pipelines in every direction,” Alberta
Premier Jim Prentice recently told Bloomberg. “We are pushing on tidewater access in every
conceivable venue.”
Meanwhile, a growing number of pipeline projects—many of them rivaling Keystone in size—
have been proposed and in some cases, are already under construction in the U.S. and Canada.
Most are geared towards Alberta’s tar sands (the largest industrial project in the world), but oil
from shale-boom hotspots like North Dakota and Colorado is also being targeted for new
projects—many of which have slipped under the public radar.
Here are some of the pipeline projects you may not have heard about, while you’ve been reading
up on Keystone:
Energy East: The $12 billion dollar pipeline by TransCanada (the same company behind
Keystone XL) would carry about 1.1 billion barrels of tar sands crude each day 2,800 miles from
Alberta to Canada’s east coast. About two-thirds of the pipeline already exists, meaning a major
part of the project will be converting that existing line, which carries natural gas, into a crude oil
pipeline. The project is currently under review by Canadian regulators with a decision expected
in 2016.
Line 9 Reversal and Expansion: Last year, regulators in Canada approved a plan to expand and
reverse an existing pipeline called Line 9 belonging to Enbridge, a Canadian energy company, so
321
that it flows west to east, transporting 300,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day to refineries in
Ontario and Quebec.
Alberta Clipper Expansion: Enbridge is in the process of adding new pumping stations to
increase the capacity of the existing Alberta Clipper pipeline, which runs from Hardistry, Alberta
to the oil storage hub in Superior, Wisconsin. Ultimately, the company plans to bolster the
pipeline’s capacity even further, to roughly 800,000 barrels per day.
Northern Gateway: The $8 billion dollar project consists of two pipelines that would run 1,178
km from the Alberta tar sands to a marine terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia. One would
carry 525,000 barrels of oil per day; the other would carry 193,000 barrels of condensate, needed
for thinning out the sludge-like consistency of tar sands oil to make it more transportable. Last
June, Canadian regulators approved the project, but Enbridge still needs to win the support of
First Nations tribes—many of whom remain fiercely opposed.
Trans Mountain Expansion Project: Houston-based Kinder Morgan filed a proposal for an
expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline system in December 2013, seeking to build another
pipeline to carry more tar sands oil from Edmonton, Alberta to the west coast of Canada, near
Vancouver. If approved, capacity of the pipeline system would nearly triple, from 300,000 to
890,000 barrels per day. The review process is underway, with a decision expected in January
2016.
White Cliffs Expansion: Last March, commissioners in Colorado approved plans to boost
capacity of an existing 527-mile pipeline from Platteville, Colorado to Cushing, Oklahoma by
about 215,000 barrels per day.
Sandpiper: Enbridge’s Sandpiper pipeline would carry 225,000 barrels oil per day from North
Dakota’s Bakken formation about 610 miles east to a storage hub in Superior, Wisconsin.
Flanagan South: Another Enbridge project, this new pipeline recently began carrying oil from
Alberta’s tar sands and the Bakken region 589 miles from Flanagan, Illinois to Cushing,
Oklahoma, eventually making its way to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast via another pipeline
system. Flanagan South runs alongside the existing Spearhead Pipeline, bringing the combined
capacity to nearly 600,000 barrels per day.
Line 3 Replacement: Enbridge plans to replace a major 1,000-mile pipeline from Edmonton,
Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. The $7 million update would replace the aging pipes with new
steel and coating—and nearly double the capacity of the existing pipeline for a daily total of
760,000 barrels of oil per day. Like its Alberta Clipper pipeline expansion, Enbridge is claiming
it can complete the update without the State Department permit required for cross-border
pipelines. Pending approval, work on the pipeline is slated to begin in the summer of 2016.
Alberta to Alaska Pipeline: Recently, Alberta officials met with their Alaskan counterparts in
Washington, D.C., to request discussions about building a pipeline linking Alberta’s tar sands
with oil export terminals on the Alaskan coast.
Alberta to Alaska Railroad: Canadian company Generating for Seven Generations is proposing
a 1,600 mile long railroad to transport oil from Fort McMurray, Alberta to Delta Junction,
322
Alaska. There it would tap into the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which currently ships oil
from the state’s dwindling North Slope oil fields to Valdez. The project is still awaiting a prefeasibility study and once completed, the company hopes to raise $40 million for a complete
study.
Sarah Tory is an editorial fellow at High Country News.
March 11, 2015 - Spate of derailments deepens fear of oil train
disaster
By JOAN LOWY Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:00 am
WASHINGTON — Four trains hauling crude oil have derailed in the U.S. and Canada since midFebruary, rupturing tank cars, spilling their contents, polluting waterways and igniting
spectacular fires that burned for days.
The derailments have deepened safety concerns that if an oil-train accident were to occur in a
populated area, the results could be disastrous.
“Recent incidents have proven once again that derailments of trains carrying this product are
dangerous, and can be catastrophic,” said Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration.
The recent spate of accidents began Feb. 14 when a 100-car Canadian National Railway train
hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than
48 hours later, a 109-car CSX oil train derailed and caught fire near Mount Carbon, West
Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation.
Thursday, 21 cars of a 105-car Burlington Northern-Santa Fe train hauling oil from the Bakken
region of North Dakota derailed outside Galena, Illinois, in the state’s northwest corner. On
Saturday, a 94-car Canadian National Railway crude-oil train derailed outside the Northern
Ontario town of Gogama and destroyed a bridge. The accident was only 23 miles from the Feb.
14th derailment.
The worst such accident in recent years involved a runaway train that derailed in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec, across the U.S.-Canada border from Maine, on July 6, 2013. The resulting explosions
and fire killed 47 people and destroyed the town’s business district.
Last year, railroads moved 493,126 tank cars of crude oil, compared to 407,761 in 2013. That’s
up from just 9,500 cars in 2008 before the hydraulic fracturing boom took off in the Bakken
region of North Dakota, Montana and Canada, as well as other areas. The number of accidents is
going up because the oil boom in the U.S. and Canada has dramatically increased the amount of
oil shipped by rail.
Most of the accidents in the U.S., as well as the Lac-Megantic derailment, involved trains hauling
323
Bakken crude. Government tests show Bakken crude is more volatile than most crude oil. The
American Petroleum Institute says Bakken is no more volatile than other light, sweet crudes.
Many factors can cause an accident, from too great a speed to operator fatigue. We won’t know
the cause of the most recent ones until investigations are complete, but weather may be a factor.
When it is very cold, as it has been across much of North America, steel rails and train car wheels
can contract and become brittle. If the steel has a manufacturing flaw, no matter how small, it can
spread rapidly in the cold weather.
“You get real cold weather like this and a rail can just snap ... a wheel will shatter like a piece of
glass,” said Ed Dobranetski, a former National Transportation Safety Board rail accidents
investigator.The
Transportation Safety Board of Canada said investigators have recovered a section of broken rail
containing a rail joint and a broken wheel “that are of interest” in the Feb. 14 derailment.
U.S. officials are working on new regulations to increase the safety of train operations and of the
special tank cars that carry oil. Draft regulations were sent to the White House budget office for
review on Feb. 4. Among other things, the proposal includes tank cars have thicker shells and
electronically controlled brakes that stop cars at the same time rather than sequentially.
“There will not be a silver bullet for solving this problem,” Feinberg said. “This situation calls
for an all-of-the-above approach — one that addresses the product itself, the tank car it is being
carried in, and the way the train is being operated.”
March 11, 2015 - Galena marks latest in series of explosive railway
accidents
March 11, 2015
By Shane Nicholson
Managing Editor
A Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) train carrying crude oil derailed near the confluence of
the Galena River and the Mississippi last Thursday afternoon near the ferry landing south of
Galena.
BNSF personnel and the Grant County Sheriff’s Office hazmat team were two of the first
responders to the spill. The Dubuque Fire Department sent its foam truck to the scene to battle
the flames.
Other responders included personnel and equipment from Freeport, Cedarville, Davis, German
Valley and Lena.
The train had 103 cars filled with crude oil and two “buffer cars” filled with sand.
324
In total, seventeen cars derailed with five of the crude-oil cars catching fire. Each car was
carrying approximately 30,000 gallons of crude oil from the Bakken formation of North Dakota.
The incident resulted in a massive black smoke plume and flames more than 300-feet high
visible on the horizon for miles.
The Federal Railroad Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board was notified
by BNSF, a Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway Inc company.
Safer cars
BNSF reported that the Galena incident happened despite the use of its newer model CPC 1232
rail cars. The supposedly safer car is meant to prevent the massive explosions witnessed outside
Galena in the event of a derailment.
The CPC 1232 was brought in to replace the older DOT-111 rail car after numerous faults were
recognized by regulators and operations over the years.
However, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has recommended that the CPC 1232
models be given improved braking systems and thicker hulls.
February’s Bakken oil train derailment in West Virginia also involved the supposedly safer CPC
1232 model rail cars. Another train which derailed in northern Ontario the same week as the
West Virginia incident featured the newer cars, although over a week later seven of the 29 cars
that had derailed remained on fire.
Rail vs pipeline safety
A Manhattan Institute study released in 2013 highlighted the dangers of rail transport versus
other methods such as over-the-road and pipelines.
The study, compiling data from 2005-2009, showed that rail transport of crude oil had a far
higher incident rate than oil transported via pipelines, despite more road and rail incidents going
unreported.
Rail transport, with 2.08 incidents per billion ton miles, was outpaced nearly 10-to-1 by oil
transported via roadways.
But it nearly quadrupled the rate of incidents related to pipelines, which had just 0.58 incidents
per billion ton miles.
Both rail and pipeline transportation accounted for an average of 2.4 fatalities per year, but again
railway transport saw fatalities at a much higher rate of occurrence as compared to the amount of
oil transported.
Per billion ton miles, railway incidents saw 0.1 fatalities whilst pipelines witnessed 0.004 deaths.
Transport by roadway again proved far more dangerous than the other two methods, accounting
for 0.293 deaths per billion ton miles.
325
Accident increases
According to the Associated Press, railroads saw 493,126 tank cars transporting oil in 2014, up
from 407,761 in 2013.
In 2008, prior to the boom set off by the opening of well throughout North Dakota, Montana and
Canada, railroads saw only 9,500 cars transport crude oil in the U.S.
Accidents have been blamed on excessive speed and operator error, though industry groups and
regulators have recently raised flags over weather-related concerns.
Cold weather can cause rails and train car wheels to contract causing the steel to become more
brittle.
Investigators of the Feb. 14 Canadian derailment have reportedly recovered a broken wheel and a
section of broken rail that they have termed “of interest” in the cause of the crash.
“You get real cold weather like this and a rail can just snap,” Ed Dobranetski, a former National
Transportation Safety Board rail accidents investigator, told the AP.
“A wheel will shatter like a piece of glass.”
Off-track safety
Recent NPR reports and other environmental experts have been focusing on the dangers of crude
oil transportation through heavily-populated areas, with more and more oil coming from the
Dakotas and Canada by rail. This oil is very volatile and gaseous in its pre-refinery condition.
After a CSX train carrying over 3 million gallons of crude oil derailed in West Virginia last
month, the company began rerouting its oil trains through other heavily populated areas.
Train lobbyists insist that revealing the details of the lines which carry this crude oil would leave
them open to terrorist attacks.
Despite this, USDOT went ahead and implemented an emergency rule last year forcing rail
companies to inform local response teams when a train carrying more than a million gallons of
crude oil was set to pass through their area.
However, the rule does not force train companies to alert residents in the area, even if the lines to
be used are not typical paths for crude oil transport.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration said in 2014 that crude oil like that
which was spilled in Galena is more flammable than other types and more dangerous to transport
over land.
A pipeline-regulator spokeswoman told Bloomberg news that “there is sufficient cause for
concern” in regards to the proper labeling of train cars carrying crude oil.
326
A Wall Street Journal Report showed that the Bakken-sourced crude oil is the most explosive of
its type as compared to 86 other locations around the world where similar fracking and horizontal
drilling techniques are used to extract crude oil.
Environmental impacts
The response in Galena once the fires were contained focused on the potential long term impact
to the surrounding environment.
The Galena spill occurred in an isolated rural area right next to the waterway, and the conditions
of the train tracks along the Mississippi have been a concern for some time with various
environmental groups, such as the Quad-Cities Waterkeepers.
As spring moves in the snow melt is driving up the level of area rivers. As a result, both the
Environmental Protection Agency and BNSF are working to erect barriers around the crash site
to prevent floodwaters from inundated the oil-soaked ground.
On June 19, 2009, 12 tank cars of the Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad (CCP) carrying
ethanol caught fire and burned at the Mulford Road crossing in Rockford. Heavy rains
destabilized a railroad crossing next to the Kishwaukee River, causing the derailment, fire and
ethanol spill.
The Kishwaukee is one only four “Class A” rivers in Illinois and a tributary to the Rock River,
now a National Water Trail. The ethanol, recent farm fertilization, and local sewer problems,
combined in a toxic mass flowing down the Rock River and resulted in the largest fish kill in the
history of Illinois.
The dead fish were so deep at the Quad Cities dams you could walk across the river on them,
according to residents at the confluence of the Rock River and the Mississippi.
[email protected] | @ofvoid
March 12, 2015 - Dangerous Trains, Aging
Rails
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/opinion/dangerous-trains-aging-rails.h...
By MARCUS STERNMARCH 12, 2015
A CSX freight train ran off the rails last month in rural Mount Carbon, W.Va. One after another,
exploding rail cars sent hellish fireballs hundreds of feet into the clear winter sky. Gov. Earl Ray
Tomblin declared a state of emergency, and the fires burned for several days.
327
The Feb. 16 accident was one of a series of recent fiery derailments highlighting the danger of
using freight trains to ship crude oil from wellheads in North Dakota to refineries in congested
regions along America’s coastlines. The most recent was last week, when a Burlington Northern
Santa Fe oil train with roughly 100 cars derailed, causing at least two cars, each with about
30,000 gallons of crude oil, to explode, burn and leak near the Mississippi River, south of
Galena, Ill.
These 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.
The railroad that operates the Tuscaloosa bridge, Watco Companies, and the Federal Railroad
Administration assured me it was safe. But shortly after my reporting was published on the
websites of InsideClimate News and The Weather Channel, Watco announced that it would make
$2.5 million in repairs. And the Department of Transportation’s inspector general said it would
begin a review of the F.R.A.’s oversight of rail bridges.
Even where federal engineering standards do exist, it’s unclear how much safety they provide.
For instance, federal track safety standards allow 19 out of 24 crossties to be defective along any
39-foot stretch of the lowest grade of track, where the speed limit is 10 m.p.h. These crossties
stabilize the rails. On the best of tracks, which have a speed limit of 80 m.p.h., the standards
allow half of the crossties to be decayed or missing.
Five oil trains have exploded in the United States in the last 16 months. Miraculously, there have
been no deaths. Canada, however, hasn’t been so lucky. In July 2013, an oil train carrying North
Dakota oil burst into flames in the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic, about 10 miles from the Maine
328
border, killing 47 people.
After that accident, federal officials promised to develop sweeping new regulations to make sure
nothing like it happens in the United States. In the interim, the Department of Transportation
issued an emergency order requiring railroads to get federal permission before leaving trains
unattended with their engines running, a major factor in the Lac-Mégantic explosion. And the
railroads agreed to a number of voluntary steps, including keeping oil trains under 50 m.p.h.
But more than a year and a half after Lac-Mégantic, new regulations have yet to be finalized as
the railroad and oil industries argue about various proposed provisions. The emergency order
didn’t end the practice of railroads’ leaving oil trains on tracks with their engines running; it
simply required companies to have a written plan for doing so. And without regulations,
reporting or penalties, the public has only the railroads’ word they are complying with the 50
m.p.h. speed limit.
For trackside communities, the stakes are obviously high. New hydraulic fracturing technology
has allowed oil developers to tap vast amounts of deeply buried oil in parts of North Dakota,
Montana and Canada. Without significant new pipeline capacity, the only way to get the oil to
refineries is by train. Rail car shipments of crude oil rose from 9,500 in 2008 to more than
400,000 last year.
To protect communities and the environment, the Transportation Department needs to act quickly
to require more resilient rail cars, improve the safety of rail infrastructure and operations, and
reduce the volatility of oil at the wellhead, before it is loaded onto trains.
Instead, the debate over regulations inches along as oil trains continue to roll through downtown
Philadelphia, suburban Chicago and along the Hudson River in New York and the Schuylkill in
eastern Pennsylvania, passing close to a nuclear power plant.
Before leaving office last year, Deborah A. P. Hersman, the chairwoman of the National
Transportation Safety Board, questioned whether industry representatives and regulators had a
tombstone mentality when it came to oil trains. If nobody dies, she suggested, there’s no pressure
to act. So far, the tombstones have all been in Canada.
Marcus Stern has examined the hazards of shipping oil by rail for InsideClimate News, the
Weather Channel and the Investigative Fund. He reports for a San Diego-based writers group,
Hashtag30.
329
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/14/prospect-of-oil-train-derailment-worrieslongmont-/
March 14, 2015 - Prospect of oil train derailment worries Longmont
residents
By KAREN ANTONACCI - Associated Press - Saturday, March 14, 2015
LONGMONT, Colo. (AP) - Some Longmont residents in the Historic Eastside neighborhood are
eyeing the railroad that runs through the heart of the city warily after a spate of recent highprofile train derailments and oil spills.
Last Saturday, a Canadian National Railway Co. train derailed in northern Ontario. Days earlier, a
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company car derailed and caught fire near Galena,
Illinois.
Another CN Railway car derailed in Ontario on Feb. 14 and a CSX Corp. train derailed and
caught fire in West Virginia on Feb. 16.
An unattended train rolled down a hill into the small town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec in 2013,
killing 47 people.
Marco Morelli, a resident of the neighborhood bounded by Kimbark Street, Martin Street, 3rd
Avenue and 9th Avenue, said the possibility of a derailment and a volatile chemical spill has him
worried.
Morelli served on a subcommittee of the neighborhood’s association that was formed to examine
issues associated with trains, including potential derailments.
“My main concern is that a derailment could lead to disastrous consequences like an explosive
fire,” Morelli said. “And it’s not just oil. I worry about chemical leaks like if a (train car) has
something like chlorine.”
Joe Sloan, a spokesman for BNSF, said that the railroad has a federal mandate to transport any
material that’s legal and the train cars are owned or leased by other companies and not the
railroad itself. That means the railroad company can’t choose to reroute cars carrying certain
chemicals.
“If you started to pick and choose which train moves on what tracks, the system wouldn’t work
basically,” Sloan said. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a small community or a large community,
we wouldn’t pick and choose one community over another.”
Sloan added that the company is attempting to make the rail lines as safe as possible and have a
HAZMAT (hazardous materials) crew on standby in the area for a worst-case scenario.
“In Colorado, we’re spending over $100 million and for the entire (28 state) system we’re
spending $6 billion on improvements to the track and crews that are continually inspecting the
330
track so it is in the best condition it can be,” Sloan said. “And we try to educate first responders
and give grants to first responder communities.”
While oil-related train accidents have made news nationally, Boulder County seems to have had a
decrease in derailments. Not every derailment results in a chemical spill or a catastrophe. There
were no reported derailments in Boulder County either from BNSF or from Union Pacific since
2010, according to Federal Railroad Administration data. Previously, from 2005 to 2010, the
county averaged 1.6 derailments a year.
Boulder County communities like Longmont and the city of Boulder share resources with the
county HAZMAT team.
Lt. Mike Becker, the HAZMAT team coordinator in Longmont, said there are roughly 70
technicians certified to keep the public safe from dangerous chemicals on the loose, and about 18
of those are on Longmont’s team. Longmont and the county regularly send HAZMAT technicians
to Pueblo for further specialized railroad spill training.
“I’m as concerned about the railroad as I was about a flood making the St. Vrain come a half a
mile wide and pour into the city,” Becker said on the possibility of a derailment-spill-fire
situation in Longmont. “Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? It’s not very likely. If it does happen, with
the different trainings we’ve done we are as prepared as we possibly can be prepared.”
Becker said that if a spill were to happen, the HAZMAT team would be mobilized immediately,
and would contact other HAZMAT contractors BNSF keeps employed in the Denver Metro area.
The next step would be to identify the chemical on the ground or in the air, by either decoding
the identification numbers on the derailed train car or calling BNSF dispatch.
“Usually a train derailment spill is pretty devastating and you’re not going to control or contain
the leak so the best plan is to evacuate based on the chemical and based on if there’s fire,” Becker
said.
Erin Dodge, with the county public health department, said after the initial HAZMAT response,
Boulder County staff would also work to notify water rights’ owners and property owners
downstream or near the spill whether it happened in Longmont, the city of Boulder or anywhere
else in the county.
“Long-term, the first step is to stop the spill, contain the spill and then determine what the
cleanup needs to be,” Dodge said.
Train derailments and oil spills have caught the attention of federal regulating agencies. In 2014,
the FRA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration released a bulletin
saying that the crude oil being transported from the North Dakota Bakken region may be more
flammable than other more traditional types of oil.
A new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation would require that oil tank cars
be thicker with added thermal protection. That rule is also under debate now as opponents point
out that the tank car that exploded into a tower of fire in West Virginia in February was one of
the new, thicker tank cars.
331
Other government agencies have proposed rules with stricter speed limits and minimum amounts
of employees on train crews.
http://www.desmogblog.com/print/9192
Published on DeSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com)
Home > Rail Industry Lobbied Against New Oil-by-Rail Safety Regulations The Day After Rail
Accident
Sun, 2015-03-15 06:58Justin Mikulka
March 15, 2015 - Rail Industry Lobbied Against New Oil-by-Rail
Safety Regulations The Day After Rail Accident
With the recent run of exploding oil train accidents [1], it isn’t surprising that the rail industry
has publicly expressed concern about hauling highly flammable oils like Bakken light crude and
diluted tar sands [2]. But that's all the industry has done: express concern. It certainly hasn't done
anything to act on its concerns.
For instance, Hunter Harrison, CEO of Canadian Pacific railway and the man who is on record as
saying that regulators “overreacted” to the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster [3], recently said Canadian
Pacific might get out of the oil hauling business [4].
“Our board of directors looked at this very carefully and said, ‘what kind of exposure do we have
and what kind of exposure are we [exposing] the public to by hauling some of these
commodities?’” Harrison told BNN television. “And in spite of the bottom line—and I was very
proud—we’ve sat back and said we might get out of this business.”
Of course, Hunter Harrison is a savvy businessman who has a record of relentless pursuit of
profit [5]. Harrison knows full well that the common carrier laws [6] that apply to rail shipments
make it so that he would have to shut down Canadian Pacific if he wanted to get out of the oil
hauling business. Which isn’t likely.
What is more likely is that, just like rail company BNSF’s early 2014 public relations stunt in
which the company said it was buying 5,000 safer rail cars to haul oil but then never did [7],
Harrison is also just feeding the media a good story.
Because two days after Harrison was telling the media he wanted out of the oil hauling business,
332
and one day after the exploding oil train accident in Galena, Illinois [8], Glen Wilson, Canadian
Pacific’s Vice President of Safety, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, was in Washington,
D.C. lobbying against new oil train safety regulations.
Wilson was in a meeting with the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) [9] that was set up by the American Association of Railroads (AAR)
and included representatives from a wide variety of rail industry players. Based on the
presentation that was made to the OIRA representatives, there were two points that the rail
industry representatives were arguing.
First, they argued against the potential regulation to require modern electronically controlled
pneumatic (ECP) braking systems on all oil trains. And later in the presentation, the industry
lobbied hard against any new speed limits.
That sounds more like the Hunter Harrison we have gotten to know over the past two years as oil
trains have continued to crash and explode. The one who said [10], “I don’t know of any
incidents with crude that’s being caused by speed.” And the one who explained the need for
speed to investors by saying, “This next stage of growth is driven by a lot of things, a little bit
here, a little bit there, but it’s effectively all the things that impact train speed and train velocity.”
Faster trains make more money, thus Hunter Harrison wants faster trains.
In one slide in the OIRA presentation, the industry did an excellent job of summing up its
position, saying, “If there were business benefits that outweighed the costs of ECP brakes,
industry would have installed ECP brakes on a widespread basis.”
[11]
333
So if the rail companies could make more money (business benefits) by installing modern brakes,
they would. But they can’t. So they won’t.
That is pretty much all you need to know about the rail industry and its position on safety vs.
profit.
In the summary of why modern ECP braking is such a bad idea, the presentation includes the
following bullet point:
“Would be extremely costly – on top of all the other costs recently steeped [sic] upon the industry
by other regulations (PTC, Risk Reduction, Training Standards, etc.)”
Yes, while the rail industry has been enjoying record profits [12] thanks in part to the lucrative
oil-by-rail business that has sprung up over the past several years, it has been burdened by new
334
regulations requiring such things as “training standards” and “risk reduction.”
And to really put the industry’s complete lack of shame in proper perspective, it’s necessary to
understand the reality of using PTC as an example of a costly regulation. PTC (positive train
control) is a safety requirement first recommended over 40 years ago [13] that was required to be
in place by the end of 2015 per a congressional mandate from 2008.
Except at a recent congressional hearing on rail safety, the head of the AAR, the same group that
organized the recent meeting with OIRA, told Congress that PTC wouldn’t be implemented for at
least another five years. So much for congressional mandates.
While it doesn’t require an engineering degree and rail experience to guess that better brakes and
slower trains might be safer modes of operation, people with that sort of experience have been
pretty adamant that this is the case.
In the many hearings since the deadly Lac-Mégantic rail accident there have been experts who
have testified about many options to make these oil trains safer. New brakes and speed limits
have been two recommendations.
At a National Transportation Safety Board hearing in April of 2014, for instance, Richard
Connor, safety specialist for the Federal Railroad Administration, gave a presentation comparing
the conventional air brake system used on most freight trains to the ECP brakes, as reported by
DeSmogBlog at the time [14].
“I’m not sure with the audience if you all understand how the current air brake systems on our
freight trains out there operate today, but it’s basically 19th-century technology,” said Connor,
who also described the performance of the brakes in an emergency situation as “painfully slow”
when comparing a conventional braking system to ECP’s response time.
And Greg Saxton, the chief engineer for rail tank manufacturer Greenbrier, explained why speed
was such a factor [15] in accidents: “Kinetic energy is related to the square of velocity. So if you
double the speed, you have four times as much energy to deal with. Speed is a big deal.”
But profits are a bigger deal. And as previously noted on DeSmogBlog [16], the oil and rail
industries have met with OIRA multiple times in the last year while the new oil-by-rail
regulations have been developed, and in all of those meetings the industry lobbyists have argued
against new safety regulations [14].
A report by Reuters [17] that was released the day before this recent meeting explained the
success of other recent lobbying efforts by the oil industry regarding oil-by-rail transportation.
According to the report, the decision not to require the oil to be made safe to transport via
stabilization [18] prior to shipment came from the top levels of the White House.
Reuters reported that Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx brought his concerns about the
335
explosive nature of the crude oil being moved by rail to the White House but was told to not
include any remedies to the problem in the regulations:
Foxx brought his concerns about the unresolved issue of dangerous gas, commonly measured as
vapor pressure, and his agency's limited power to curtail the problem to President Barack
Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough. The administration decided to just let the existing oil
train safety plan take root.
If Hunter Harrison doesn’t want to transport dangerous oil, he would be arguing that the oil
should be stabilized. But he isn’t.
He and the rest of the oil and gas industry have lobbied hard to be able to move the dangerous oil
in unit trains of more than 100 unsafe tanks cars with old brakes as fast as they can. And so far,
the White House has heard their message loud and clear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/after-a-spate-of-train-wreckscongress-takes-a-new-view-of-federal-rail-agency/2015/03/14/0398a278-c8db-11e4-a1996cb5e63819d2_story.html
March 15, 2015 - After a spate of train wrecks, Congress takes a new
view of federal rail agency
By Ashley Halsey III March 15
After a string of deadly train crashes, a pair of angry U.S. senators stood in New York’s Grand
Central Terminal four months ago to denounce the Federal Railroad Administration as a “lawless
agency, a rogue agency,’’ too cozy with the railroads it regulates and more interested in “cutting
corners” for them than protecting the public.
Fast-forward to the past two months, when photos of rail cars strewn akimbo beside tracks have
rivaled mountains of snow in Boston for play in newspapers and on television.
And the blowback from Congress on the railroad agency’s performance?
Proactive. Responsive. On top of it. Very helpful. Superb.
Those accolades primarily were directed at the new acting head of the FRA, Sarah Feinberg,
whose two-month tenure in the job has coincided with an astonishing number of high-profile
train wrecks.
Officials inspect the commuter train crash involving an SUV from the previous night on Feb. 4 in
Valhalla, N.Y. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
336
●Feb. 3: Six people are killed when a commuter train hits an SUV at a grade crossing in
Valhalla, N.Y.
●Feb. 4: Fourteen tank cars carrying ethanol jump the tracks north of Dubuque, Iowa, and three
of them burst into flames.
●Feb. 16: Twenty-eight tank cars carrying crude oil derail and catch fire in rural West Virginia.
●Feb. 24: A commuter train derails in Oxnard, Calif., after hitting a tractor-trailer at a grade
crossing.
●March 5: Twenty-one tank cars derail and leak crude oil within yards of a tributary of the
Mississippi River in rural Illinois.
●March 9: The engine and baggage car of an Amtrak train derail after hitting a tractor-trailer at a
grade crossing.
A first glance, Feinberg seems an unlikely choice to replace Joseph C. Szabo, the career railroad
man who resigned after five years in the job. She is 37, a former White House operative, onetime
spokesman for Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and, most recently, chief of staff at the
Transportation Department.
Nothing on her résumé says “railroad.”
“Sometimes it’s good to have an outside person,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who
got a call from Feinberg immediately after the Feb. 3 crash in Valhalla. “She’s smart, she’s a
quick study, she knows how to bring people together. I think she’s the right person for the job.”
“Whether she’s had a lifetime experience riding the rails or working on the rails, she knows how
to get to the crux of things and move things forward,” said Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who
arrived at the Feb. 16 crash shortly before Feinberg did. “I was very impressed.”
Given the double-barreled blast at Grand Central last October by the Democratic senators from
Connecticut — Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy — the importance of catering to Congress
was not lost on Feinberg. Schumer calls her “hard-nosed” and says he isn’t worried if she ruffles
some in an industry who have grown accustomed to a more languid pace of change.
After the Valhalla crash, Feinberg pulled together an FRA team to come up with a better way to
address an issue that kills hundreds of people at grade crossings each year.
“We’re at a point where about 95 percent of grade-crossing incidents are due to driver or
pedestrian error,” she said. “While I don’t blame the victims, this is a good example of a problem
that needs some new thinking and a fresh set of eyes.”
A month later, she called on local law enforcement to show a greater presence at grade crossings
and ticket drivers who try to beat the warning lights. Next, the railroad administration says it
plans “to employ smarter uses of technology, increase public awareness of grade crossing safety
and improve signage.”
337
“When it comes to the rail industry, that is lightning fast, and it’s really impressive,” said a
congressional aide who focuses on transportation. “We’ve seen, time and time again in the rail
industry, incidents happen. And it takes years, and sometimes even decades, to get action.”
Grade-crossing deaths, though frequent, pale in comparison with the potential catastrophe that
Feinberg says keeps her awake at night.
All of the crude-oil train derailments this year happened miles from the nearest town. But little
more than a year ago, a CSX train that included six crude-oil tank cars derailed on a river bridge
in the middle of Philadelphia. And an oil-fueled fireball after a derailment in the Canadian town
of Lac-Megantic in July 2013 left 47 people dead.
“We’re transporting a highly flammable and volatile crude from the middle of the country, more
than 1,000 miles on average, to refineries on the coast,” Feinberg said.
The number of tank-car trains has expanded exponentially since a production boom began in the
Bakken region, centered in North Dakota. Seven years ago, 9,500 tank cars of Bakken crude
traveled by railroad. Last year, the number was 493,126. In 2013, an additional 290,000 cars
transported ethanol.
“Fifty to 60 trains pass through this area every day,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) said as she visited
the spot where 21 tank cars derailed and leaked crude on March 5. “I cannot overstate my sense
of urgency in making sure that we keep people safe.”
Like every other member of Congress dealing with a train wreck back home, Bustos said one of
the first people she heard from was Feinberg.
“She answered every question I had,” Bustos said. “She was informative, she took her time with
me. I feel good about that. Not every agency responds to a crisis like that.”
The FRA is an agency that flies under the radar most of the time, a powerful presence to the
railroads it regulates but generally out of the public eye. The Federal Aviation Administration —
think drones and airlines — gets attention. So does the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, with record auto recalls last year and the fight against distracted driving.
But dealing with the hazard of the huge quantities of volatile crude now snaking across the
country may thrust the FRA to the fore, particularly if the next exploding derailment occurs in or
near a city.
Mindful of the potential for disaster, the White House tasked the Office of Management and
Budget and the Transportation Department with figuring out how to safely transport the Bakken
crude. At Transportation, that fell to Feinberg, who had just signed on as chief of staff to
Secretary Anthony Foxx.
“We found her to be very hands-on, firm but fair, and ready to work with all stakeholders in
making fact-based decisions,” said Ed Greenberg of the Association of American Railroads. “She
is someone who has quickly recognized the challenges in moving crude oil by rail. And the
freight rail industry is ready to work with her and her FRA staff.”
338
The congressional aide said he sees Feinberg as “sort of the sweet spot” in running the FRA.
“She has a depth of subject-matter knowledge that allows her to speak in a lot of detail and with
a lot of expertise on a lot of these issues, but she’s not a career railroad person,” he said, “so
she’s also willing to challenge the way things are done and ask questions. And I think that’s the
key to that job. She has the knowledge but also the ability to move the needle.”
With six people dead in the Feb. 3 Valhalla crash, Robert Sumwalt, a veteran member of the
National Transportation Safety Board, was tossing clothes into a suitcase to head up there near
midnight when Feinberg called.
“She called to say, ‘We’re there to support you in any way that we can,’ ” he said. “In launching
on over 20 accidents as a board member, I’ve only had one other case where the head of a DOT
agency called me to make a statement like that.”
Feinberg surprised him a second time when he reached Valhalla the next day.
“It was cold as the dickens, and she was there,” Sumwalt said. “Not only that, but she crawled
into the rail car that was all burned out to get a good look at it.”
Ashley Halsey reports on national and local transportation.
http://marcellus.com/news/id/120497/p-a-needs-a-train-derailment-task-force-according-tocasey/
March 16, 2015 - P.A. needs a train derailment task force, according
to Casey
Danielle Wente | Shale Plays Media
Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey is pushing for a federal legislation that would put in place a task
force to acknowledge the increasing number of crude oil train derailments occurring in
Pennsylvania.
The legislation, titled The Response Act, would develop a Federal Emergency Management
Agency National Advisory Council subcommittee that would assist first responders in dealing
with crude oil train derailments. According to data from Sen. Casey’s office, there has been a
drastic increase in oil train derailments from 2008 to now. The committee would suggest
recommendations to increase training and responses within a year.
Sen. Casey commented on the increased number of derailments and the need for legislation:
339
The increase in train derailments in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation is troubling and
requires action … This legislation is a commonsense approach that could give our first
responders more training and the additional resources they need.
The most recent crude oil train derailment to take place in Pennsylvania was on February 12th. A
Norfolk Southern train was hauling heavy Canadian crude oil when it derailed and spilled in
western Pennsylvania. The train crashed into an industrial building and 19 of the 120 were
carrying crude oil. Four of the cars spilled between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons of oil. No injuries
were reported and the leaks were plugged. Cleanup began that day and the Federal Railroad
Administration said it was dispatching an investigator to the derailment location.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/refiners-sue-bnsf-railway-over-1-000-oiltank-car-surcharges
March 16, 2015 - Refiners Sue BNSF Railway Over $1,000 Oil Tank
Car Surcharge
by Laurel Brubaker CalkinsThomas Black 3:45 PM CDT March 16, 2015
(Bloomberg) -- BNSF Railway Co. was sued by a trade group for 400 U.S. refining and
petrochemical makers objecting to a $1,000 surcharge the nation’s biggest rail transporter of
crude oil tacked onto older-model tank cars.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers complain the surcharge is designed to
encourage shippers to retrofit or scrap older tank cars in favor of safer “jacketed” models that
aren’t required by federal transportation-safety regulators.
The refining industry’s suit against its largest railway hauler is the latest in a barrage of lawsuits
related to crude oil shipments, including those over the fiery 2013 crash in Quebec that killed 47
people. Crude-oil handling facilities serving rail lines are mired in lawsuits by community and
environmental groups accusing regulators of failing to look at pollution and safety threats.
BNSF hauls more than 600,000 barrels of crude daily, including more than half of the oil
pumped from the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana, according to a complaint in
Houston federal court. The 23,000 older-model tank cars affected by the railroad’s surcharge
comprise about 28 percent of the national crude oil rail fleet, the refiners said.
The surcharge adds $1.50 a barrel to shipping costs when crude prices have dropped by about 50
percent since mid-2014, according to the trade group, which represents about 95 percent of U.S.
refining capacity. BNSF began adding the fee on Jan. 1.
Mike Trevino, a BNSF spokesman, declined to comment on the lawsuit filed Friday. Fort Worth,
Texas-based BNSF is owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
340
Train Fires
This month a BNSF train carrying Bakken crude derailed in rural Illinois, catching fire and
spurring first responders to evacuate homes in a 1-mile radius. Of the 105 cars, of which two
were hauling sand, 21 left the tracks and at least five caught fire. The BNSF accident occurred
only a few days before a Canadian National Railway Co. crude train jumped the tracks near
Gogama, 373 miles north of Toronto. The derailment damaged a bridge over a waterway and five
tank cars caught fire.
No one was injured in either accident, which didn’t involve any of the older cars subject to the
surcharge.
Crude-train derailments have spurred U.S. and Canadian authorities to begin drawing up
regulations to improve safety, especially after the fatal July 2013 inferno in Lac Megantic,
Quebec. The new rules are expected at minimum to mandate modifications for tank cars built
before October 2011.
New Standards
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is drafting new safety standards for
rail shippers that would require older tank cars to eventually be retrofitted or phased out,
according to the refining and petrochemical industry group’s lawsuit.
“BNSF’s assertion of unilateral regulatory authority over crude oil tank car standards conflicts
with the pending PHMSA rulemaking on such standards,” the trade group said in its complaint.
Regulators’ authority over tank car safety standards would be “undermined” if railroads were
allowed “to use financial surcharges and penalties to coerce companies to adopt different
standards.”
The case is American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. BNSF Railway Co., 15-00682;
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
March 17 - Latest inspection turns up railroad tanker defects
Posted on March 17, 2015 at 10:49 am by Rick Karlin, Capitol bureau in Bulletin, Department of
Transportation, Energy, Environment
The Cuomo Administration is out with results of their latest round of state and federal
inspections of railway oil tankers and track and they found 93 defects including seven that were
serious enough to require rapid action.
341
Trains carrying hydrofracked crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields have become an
issue, particularly in places like Albany where they arrive to unload their cargo onto Hudson
River barges.
Here are the details:
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced completion of another round of targeted crude oil
tank car and rail inspections, which uncovered 93 defects, including seven critical safety defects
that required immediate corrective action, and two hazardous materials violations. The
inspections are the latest in a series of actions that state agencies are taking at the direction of the
Governor to protect New Yorkers from the potential dangers associated with the transport of
crude oil by freight rail companies. State and federal teams examined 453 crude oil tank cars and
approximately 148 miles of track in these inspections.
“Our administration is continuing to hold crude oil transporters to the highest standard of safety,
and this latest round of inspections shows that our efforts are making a significant difference
when it comes to protecting New Yorkers,” Governor Cuomo said. “The importance of these
inspections is underscored both by the recent rash of derailments and explosions involving crude
oil trains in other states, as well as the current lack of tough regulations, which only Washington
has the authority to impose. In the meantime, we will continue to remain vigilant and work with
all partners to make sure that crude oil is transported safely across the state.”
On Wednesday, March 11, and Thursday, March 12, inspection teams from the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
carried out track and crude oil tanker inspections at the CSX Corporation-owned Frontier Rail
Yard in Buffalo, and the Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway-owned Kenwood Rail Yard in Albany.
In addition, the inspectors examined mainline track along the following sections:
- Newburgh in Dutchess County to Haverstraw in Rockland County;
- Macedon to Lyons in Wayne County;
- Ripley to Dunkirk in Chautauqua County;
- Fort Edward in Washington County to Burnt Hills in Saratoga County; and
- Track at both the Kenwood and Frontier Rail Yards.
The inspections focused on track, track hardware and tank car mechanical safety equipment,
including wheels and brakes. The teams also performed hazardous materials inspections to
ensure that equipment is in line with regulations, including valves, valve closures, and placards
that describe the cargo being shipped. They also checked tank car inspection and pressure test
dates.
Critical defects identify important maintenance issues that must be addressed immediately, but
do not necessarily indicate safety lapses. Non-critical rail defects must be repaired within 30
days, while all tank car defects must be fixed before the train departs the yard. If that is not
possible, the affected car will be pulled from the train to await repair.
NYSDOT Commissioner Joan McDonald said, “Once again, our inspectors found numerous
track and rail car maintenance issues that were quickly addressed. I’m proud to work with
342
Governor Cuomo and the Federal Rail Administration to increase public safety with respect to
transporting hazardous materials through New York State.”
Track Inspections
CSX Mainline Track Inspection – Newburgh to Haverstraw
NYSDOT and FRA track inspectors examined approximately 22 miles of track and two switches
along the CSX mainline from Newburgh to Haverstraw. The inspectors found one critical defect
– deteriorated cross ties along a short section of track – which has since been repaired. The
inspectors also found four non-critical defects, including loose switch bolts and insufficient
ballast.
CSX Mainline Track Inspection – Macedon to Lyons
An FRA track inspector examined 22 miles of track between Macedon and Lyons. The inspector
found two critical defects: improper clearance at a switch transition device, and another switch
transition device was chipped in excess of allowable limits. Both have been repaired. The
inspector also found seven non-critical safety defects, including loose switch bolts, missing and
loose bolts at a switch transition device, and loose switch clip bolts.
CSX Siding Track Inspection – Syracuse & Oneida
A NYSDOT track inspector examined approximately five miles of track and five switches on
CSX controlled rail sidings in Syracuse and Oneida. The inspector discovered five non-critical
defects, including loose joint bars, loose joints on a switch component, missing cotter pins, and
loose bolts on a switch transition device.
CSX Frontier Yard Mainline & Yard Track Inspection – Buffalo
An FRA track inspector examined two miles of mainline track and four miles of yard track,
including 21 switches, at the Frontier Yard in Buffalo. One critical defect was found, a switch
transition device in the yard was found to be chipped in excess of allowable limits, resulting in
the speed limit being lowered from 15 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour. The inspection also
found 17 non-critical defects, including loose switch bolts, loose joint bars, loose switch point
heel blocks and missing cotter pins in switch bolts.
CSX Mainline Track Inspection – Ripley to Dunkirk
A NYSDOT track inspector examined 58 miles of track and 11 switches between Ripley and
Dunkirk. The inspector found five non-critical defects including fouled ballast, insufficient
fasteners, and loose bolts at a switch transition device.
CP Mainline Track Inspection – Fort Edward to Burnt Hills
An FRA track inspector examined 35 miles of track and five switches between Fort Edward and
Burnt Hills. The inspector found three critical defects – missing bolts in rail joints – which were
immediately repaired by a CP crew. Eleven non-critical defects were also found, including loose
and missing switch bolts, and fouled ballast.
CP Kenwood Yard Track and Switch Inspection – Albany
A NYSDOT track inspector examined one mile of yard track and 26 switches at CP’s Kenwood
343
Yard in Albany. The inspector discovered 10 non-critical defects, including loose and missing
bolts on switch components and missing cotter pins on switch bolts.
Tank Car Inspections
Albany
At the Kenwood Rail Yard in Albany, rail equipment inspectors examined 200 crude oil tank
cars and found 24 non-critical defects, including thin brake shoes, shelled wheels, and a missing
knuckle pin. An FRA hazardous materials inspector examined 120 crude oil tank cars and issued
two violations to the oil shipping company Global Partners, for a missing sample line plug and
for failing to apply a vapor line cap lock. These violations required immediate corrective action
before the train was allowed out of the yard, and the FRA may fine the shipping company. The
inspector also found two non-critical defects, including loose packing nuts.
Buffalo
At the Frontier Rail Yard in Buffalo, 109 tank cars were examined by a NYSDOT rail equipment
inspector, who found three non-critical defects including thin brake shoes and a missing brake
shoe retainer key. In addition, NYSDOT and FRA hazardous materials inspectors examined 24
crude oil tank cars and found one non-critical defect, which was a loose safety railing.?
Since this targeted inspection campaign began in February 2014, NYSDOT and its federal
partners have inspected 8,504 rail cars (including 6,496 crude oil tank cars) and 2,988 miles of
track, uncovered 1,048 defects, and issued 18 hazardous materials violations.
Increased inspections of railroad tracks and tank cars are one of the aggressive actions New York
State has taken following a series of out-of-state disasters involving the transport of crude oil
from the Bakken oil fields centered in North Dakota.
Last year, at the direction of Governor Cuomo, state agencies conducted a coordinated review of
safety procedures and emergency response preparedness related to increased shipments of
Bakken crude across nearly 1,000 miles of New York State. The agencies issued a report in April
2014 containing 27 recommendations for state government, federal government and industry to
take to reduce risks and increase public safety in the transport of crude oil.
To date, state agencies are working to implement all 12 state government recommendations and
have completed five. Specifically, New York State has taken 66 actions to better prepare state
and local responders in the event of a crude oil incident as detailed in a progress report released
earlier last December.
In his 2015 Opportunity Agenda, Governor Cuomo detailed proposals to protect New York from
the boom in crude oil transportation including to:
- Hire eight new employees for DEC and six for the Office of Fire Protection and Control
dedicated to oil spill planning, training and response;
- Increase the fees for oil transported through New York to 13.75 cents per barrel. This is an
increase from 12.25 cents for oil imported into the state, and 1.5 cents for transshipped oil,
irrespective of whether the oil remains in New York or is transferred on to another State;
344
- Increase the Oil Spill Response and Prevention Fund by 60 percent, from $25 million to $40
million to ensure the solvency of the fund and provide the necessary funding for staff and
associated preparedness costs;
- Move administration of the Oil Spill Fund from the Comptroller’s Office to DEC. This will
create efficiencies in the operation of the fund and ensure more money goes to cleaning up spills
as well as planning and preparedness operations;
- Establish the New York State Foam Task Force. The State will pre-deploy foam, firefighting
equipment, and supplies along rail lines statewide. The State will provide standardized training
and support to local agencies to deploy and operate the equipment necessary to fight flammable
liquid fires. The State will also continue to increase its own foam capabilities to better
supplement and support local resources at any major crude oil incident; and
- Coordinate State, local and industry planning and preparedness. The State’s inter-agency
working group will further integrate response planning at the local, county, state and federal
levels, and improve coordination of the railroads and terminal operators involved in the shipment
of crude oil across New York.
http://www.marinelink.com/news/railroads-mishaps-answer387755.aspx
March 17, 2015 - US Railroads Must Answer for Oil Train Mishaps
Posted by Michelle Howard
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
The rail industry is chiefly responsible for preventing oil train accidents and U.S. regulators
must do more to keep trains on the tracks, a leading voice for the energy industry said on
Monday.
"Any effort to enhance rail safety must begin with addressing track integrity and human factors,"
Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers wrote in a letter
to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
Drevna's letter specifically disputed comments last week from Sarah Feinberg, acting head of the
Federal Railroad Administration, who said the energy industry must do more to control the
volatility of oil trains.
"(We) are running out of things that we can put on the railroads to do," she told reporters.
Oil train tankers have jumped the tracks in a string of mishaps that resulted in explosions and
fires.
Several of those shipments originated from North Dakota's Bakken energy fields. Officials have
warned that fuel from the region is particularly light and volatile.
345
Keeping oil trains on the tracks is the best way to prevent disaster, Drevna wrote.
He cited government data that there were more than 1,100 derailments on major rail lines last
year and that poor track conditions were a leading cause of those accidents.
Drevna said he was surprised to learn from Feinberg that federal regulators were satisfied with
the safety record of rail operators.
"Does DOT believe that the current frequency of derailments is acceptable?" he wrote. "Do you
disagree that additional track inspections and more robust track maintenance requirements would
significantly enhance safety?"
The White House is expected to endorse a national oil train safety plan by May. The proposal will
likely require thicker tank cars, advanced braking systems and other improvements.
Drevna wrote that refiners have invested about $4 billion in recent years to adopt safer tank car
designs, even as the industry waited for a safety blueprint from Washington.
Feinberg's remarks "show a fundamental misunderstanding of the root cause of rail accidents,"
Drevna said in the letter.
Also on Monday, U.S. Senator Al Franken endorsed Feinberg's comments on the oil industry.
"I urge you to take whatever actions necessary to address the safety of the product itself, as your
comments called for, and require that this crude oil be made less volatile before it is shipped
through my state and across the country," the Minnesota Democrat wrote to Feinberg.
Reporting By Patrick Rucker
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_27736324/berkeley-council-screens-videoexploding-oil-trains
March 18, 2015 - Berkeley: Council screens video of exploding oil
trains
By Tom Lochner [email protected]
Posted: 03/18/2015 11:22:45 AM PDT0 Comments | Updated: about 13 hours ago
BERKELEY -- A nine-minute video featuring footage of several exploding crude-oil trains
portends a dire fate if a similar mishap were to occur along the Amtrak Capitol Corridor through
Richmond, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Fremont, San Jose and other East Bay and South Bay
cities.
"Boom: North America's Explosive Oil-by-Rail Problem," produced by The Weather Channel
346
and InsideClimate News, awed the audience at Tuesday's City Council meeting with vivid
footage of train explosions in Quebec, Alabama, North Dakota and Virginia, all within the last
two years, and another in 2009 in Illinois.
The July 6, 2013, explosion of a crude oil train in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killed 47 people and
destroyed much of that small city's downtown.
A rail spur project proposed for the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery in Central California,
currently under review by San Luis Obispo County, would receive about 250 trains a year, each
with 80 tank carloads of crude oil likely from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada.
Possible access routes for the trains to San Luis Obispo County would be from the south, via the
Los Angeles Basin, and the north, via the East Bay and South Bay.
"We need to be awake and alert and let our voices be heard," said Councilwoman Linda Maio,
who prompted the screening.
Phillips 66 has said it is complying with strict federal and California environmental regulations
and that safety concerns will be adequately addressed.
Last year, the Richmond and Berkeley city councils voted to oppose the transport of crude oil
through the East Bay.
This week the San Leandro City Council passed a resolution opposing Phillips 66's San Luis
Obispo County project, and the council in Albany approved a letter opposing shipments of crude
oil by rail through the city. The Albany council also requested the letter also be sent to Rep.
Barbara Lee and U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
"Boom" can be viewed at http://stories.weather.com/boom.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/cn-track-infrastructure-faults-under-tsb-s-microscope1.3001591
March 19, 2015 - CN track infrastructure faults under TSB's
microscope
Number of inspectors has dropped from 20,000 to 3,000 over the last two decades, union official
says
CBC News Posted: Mar 19, 2015 2:07 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 20, 2015 11:53 AM ET
347
Pictured is a piece of track from the March 7 Gogama, Ont., train derailment site. The
Transportation Safety Board points to the broken rail and wheel flange damage to the top of the
joint bar. (TSB)
Two unions say the Transportation Safety Board is highlighting faults in track infrastructure in
three recent train derailments.
The Transportation Safety Board is analyzing a failed joint taken from the bridge where a
CN train derailed on March 7, near Gogama, Ont.
The national rail director with Unifor says the board is considering joint failure in this and two
other recent derailments.
"The TSB will hopefully determine whether there's a systemic failure here in either maintenance
standards, or maybe there's a requirement to provide more regulations on track inspection and
maintenance," Brian Stevens said.
He added there are fewer people checking the rails, and said the number of inspectors has
dropped from 20,000 to 3,000 over the last two decades. Rail companies are relying on
technology instead, he said.
"Whether they're using more way-side detectors, impact detectors, hotbox detectors, track
geometry, [they’re] relying on these reports to demonstrate to Transport Canada [that] we don't
need boots on the ground."
The train had been obeying an order limiting speed, but the president of the Teamsters Canada
Rail Conference says it was still going too fast.
Doug Finnson said companies want trains to be longer and go faster.
"They speak of a maximum amount of trains moving across and so, if they increase the speed,
increase the length and increase the weight, they make more money, obviously.”
CN said in a statement it has enhanced inspection procedures on the northern Ontario rail
corridor.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/bnsf-railway-faces-penalties-reporting-violations/nkbGC/
348
Updated: 11:51 p.m. Thursday, March 19, 2015 | Posted: 8:54 p.m. Thursday, March 19, 2015
March 19, 2015 - BNSF Railway faces penalties for reporting
violations
By Natasha Chen
OLYMPIA, Wash. —
Washington rail regulators have recommended that BNSF Railway be penalized up to $700,000
for failing to report crude oil leaks and other hazardous material spills along the state's railway.
The Washington Utilities Commission issued a complaint Thursday, alleging BNSF failed to
report 14 hazardous material spills to the state within the required time period.
A staff investigation found BNSF committed 700 violations between Nov. 1 and Feb. 24 by not
notifying state emergency officials. That's one violation for every day the spills weren't reported.
The commission can impose penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
The spills happened in Blaine, Pasco, Wenatchee, Spokane Valley, Seattle, Everett, Vancouver,
Quincy and Auburn.
BNSF spokesperson Gus Melonas said the company supports federal regulations expected later
this year that would improve the design of tank cars.
In a statement, Melonas said:
“BNSF is currently reviewing the investigative report issued by the Utilities and Transportation
Commission. There is nothing more important to BNSF than safely carrying all the products that
we carry.
"We are committed to complying with all of the applicable local, state and federal guidelines. In
regard to reporting what appear to be very small releases in Washington state that are referenced
in the report, we believe we were complying in good faith with the requirements from our agency
partners.
"Following guidance from the UTC in January in 2015, BNSF reviewed its reporting notification
process, and updated its practices to address concerns identified by the UTC. We will continue to
work closely with the UTC moving forward on this issue.”
The railway can request a hearing before the commission.
Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earth Justice, said the problem is serious no matter how large the
spill.
“Even a minor spill can have a tremendous impact on your water supply, your ground water. The
toxic fumes that come off of this kind of oil can be very hazardous to people’s health,” Boyles
said.
349
On two occasions, cars leaked 100 gallons of lube oil.
“People can say ‘it’s small’ and kind of hide the truth. I’m not saying they’re doing that. But I
think either way, a spill is a spill and it’s going to affect the people around here and the
environment,” said Taylor Babcock, whose house is about 100 yards from the Auburn rail yard.
In January, six tank cars there leaked crude oil, according to the UTC.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060015357
March 19, 2015 - Towns launch 'David and Goliath' challenges to
crude-by-rail traffic First of two stories.
Blake Sobczak, E&E reporter EnergyWire: Thursday, March 19, 2015
Jim Adams, mayor of Crystal, Minn., said he and his constituents are "going to make as much
noise as we can" over a half-mile stretch of train tracks that haven't even been built.
The result? Several packed public meetings, an unusual multimillion-dollar real estate deal and
even state legislation that would bring the matter to President Obama's desk.
"This came from a local Crystal issue to a regional issue in a very short time," Adams said,
adding that he has been "completely amazed" by the response.
The BNSF Railway Co. proposal in question would link a little-used rail line in Crystal to busier
tracks run by Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. The connection could send mile-long oil trains
through Minneapolis suburbs that have never seen such traffic.
Local pushback against BNSF's project reflects broader discontent around freight rail lines across
the nation. The surge in crude traffic in recent years -- coupled with a string of oil train
derailments and fires -- has pushed cities to act against the very railroads they were often built
around.
But city leaders who challenge railroads can be hamstrung by eminent domain laws, federally
pre-emptive regulations and other legal realities that favor interstate commerce.
"This is their property through our cities, and they intend to use it," noted hazardous materials
consultant and rail safety advocate Fred Millar. "The railroads are going to be very careful not to
give away anything that intrudes on their overall sovereignty."
In Crystal, Adams said he is not contesting the rail business or even crude shipments. Instead,
he's calling on federal transportation regulators to require a full environmental assessment of
BNSF's rail spur, a step he expects will highlight safety problems posed by blocked crossings.
The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 gives some leeway to regulate railroads outside the
federal level if "necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard."
350
Adams said his town likely couldn't dissuade BNSF from the project if the Berkshire Hathaway
subsidiary pitched a legal battle.
"We know we're dealing with someone who's got more power than we have, and we're just doing
pretty much everything that we can," he said.
Thrown into the fray
BNSF spokeswoman Amy McBeth said the company is considering the Crystal connection "to
more efficiently move all kinds of freight traffic already moving through the metro area."
She pointed out that 2014 "was our all-time safest year, even while volumes of all kinds are
increasing."
Nevertheless, county officials this month moved to buy property BNSF would need for the
project before the company could get hold of it.
Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, who represents Crystal, said the purchase was to
prevent BNSF "from connecting up to Canadian Pacific to run oil trains through densely
populated suburbs."
A BNSF oil train derailed and exploded near Galena, Ill., earlier this month, just weeks after a
separate CSX Corp. crude-by-rail accident near Mount Carbon, W.Va.
"Purchasing the property was sort of a county effort to throw ourselves into the fray and protect
and preserve public safety," said Opat's principal aide, Steve Gershone. "We hope it will just
make the cost of this connection too high for [BNSF] and maybe they'll look somewhere else to
alleviate that congestion."
A bill under consideration in the Minnesota Legislature would exempt Hennepin County from
eminent domain laws that BNSF could normally use to acquire the three small properties needed
for the connection.
A separate bill urges the federal Surface Transportation Board "to order the BNSF Railway
Company or the Canadian Pacific railroad to complete an environmental impact statement prior
to acquiring land, completing final design, or commencing construction of the railroad connector
track." It would also dispatch copies of the resolution to Obama and several U.S. lawmakers.
CP declined to comment.
The freight rail industry has launched several programs to head off tensions with communities.
The TRANSCAER initiative aims to improve community relations through hazardous materials
education and training exercises. In the event of an oil train derailment, companies set up
community outreach centers and compensate victims and businesses affected by the accident.
A devastating oil train derailment in 2013 shook that approach to compensating communities,
however. That July, a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd. train hauling crude from North
Dakota jumped the tracks and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and
351
decimating the center of town. The railroad soon declared bankruptcy, leaving surviving victims
and the Canadian government to sort out how to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in
cleanup costs and other damages.
BNSF's Executive Chairman Matt Rose said at a conference in January that "we are sympathetic
to these communities we operate in," noting that the railroad is "working with local officials on
their concerns."
Given rising rail traffic, he said "there's no easy answers."
"On our railroad, we have 38,000 crossings, and if you go out and talk to the people who live
there, every one of them is absolutely critical to the long-term well-being of that small town,"
Rose said. "There are going to be really hard decisions made on both the community side, as well
as the policy side."
'Extreme measures'
Crystal isn't the only city to have caused a stir in the railroad industry.
"Any small town you talk to would tell you that the railroad doesn't always listen to you real well,
and you sometimes have to take a little more extreme measures to get their attention," said Alan
Lee, mayor of Berthold, N.D.
The Berthold City Council recently approved an ordinance to bar trains from blocking crossings
for more than 20 minutes in the small town of 600.
Lee said mile-long "unit" trains of oil and other commodities risked tying up ambulances or fire
trucks on one side of the tracks.
Nearly 700,000 barrels of oil leave North Dakota daily by rail, according to the latest figures
available from the North Dakota Pipeline Authority, bringing record hazardous materials traffic
through the region.
Berthold's decision to ticket trains that hold up crossings mirrors a similar move by Enderlin,
N.D., last year.
But Enderlin rolled back its 10-minute parking limit in January after a legal challenge from
Canadian Pacific.
CP's lawyers argued in court filings that Enderlin's ordinance "will substantially interfere with
railroad operations, create safety risks, and unduly burden interstate commerce."
The company's complaint went on to say that Enderlin had violated the U.S. Constitution and
sought to recover attorney's fees and "further relief" from the city of some 900 residents.
Asked whether he was worried about a similar court battle over Berthold's ordinance, Lee said he
expected the railroads to "be better citizens" given public scrutiny following recent derailments.
352
"They're big enough and have enough money that most of these towns can't afford to challenge
them," Lee said. "The railroads have a bank of lawyers -- we have one.
"He's a good one," Lee added.
'David and Goliath'
Karen Darch, village president of Barrington, Ill., has pitched her own yearslong battle to draw
attention to local concerns along a busy Canadian National Railway Co. line.
Most recently, Darch has petitioned the Surface Transportation Board to make CN pay for part of
a planned $64 million grade-separated crossing to ease the disruption to the Barrington
community.
"It would be great if they just said, 'OK, we'll pay part of the underpass,' but I think they're
looking at it from a business perspective," Darch said of CN.
CN acquired the Barrington tracks seven years ago to give the company a way around the rail
chokepoint of Chicago. Darch and her city's legal team have argued that the company failed to
account for an uptick of crude traffic through the area since its initial environmental review.
The Canadian railroad has contested those claims.
"It is true that CN has experienced some increases in energy-related traffic through Barrington in
the form of (i) heavy crude oil from Western Canada and (ii) frac sand from Wisconsin, but
neither is moving or is expected to move in overwhelming volumes through Barrington," CN
countered in a Dec. 16, 2014, reply to STB.
The following month, Fiona Murray, vice president of corporate marketing for CN, updated that
assessment to reflect the decline in oil prices. "If oil remains at or below $50 per barrel, I project
that the additional volume of loaded heavy crude unit trains for 2015 will be no greater than the
low end of my earlier estimate, that is, 8 trains per week, or 1.1 trains per day," Murray wrote.
The company has urged STB to dismiss Barrington's case.
Darch, a former attorney, said she has no intent on dropping her requests. She said her legal skills
have come in handy during "cordial" but occasionally tense exchanges with CN.
"It helped to be a lawyer -- the bargaining position here was, you know, David and Goliath," she
said. "It's been a long haul in terms of trying to tip the balance of power."
353
http://www.omaha.com/money/railroads/union-pacific-request-to-haul-liquefied-natural-gasdraws-criticism/article_ea761863-bd80-511d-8f87-e60245daa492.html
March 19, 2015 - Union Pacific request to haul liquefied natural gas
draws criticism
Posted: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:00 am By Russell Hubbard / World-Herald staff writer
Union Pacific Railroad has applied for permission to haul liquefied natural gas, which would add
another combustible cargo to a U.S. rail network already being criticized for transporting ethanol
and crude oil through populated areas.
The Omaha-based railroad said the application for a permit from the Federal Railroad
Administration is in response to a request for liquefied natural gas transportation from an existing
customer. Union Pacific operates 32,000 miles of track in the western United States, which is
home to many natural gas production and storage installations.
If Union Pacific is granted the permit, it would be a first. The Association of American Railroads
said none of the other six Class I freight railroads are hauling liquefied natural gas.
The permit application coincides with a major bump in railway ethanol and crude oil cargo,
which has attracted heavy opposition after a fatal oil train explosion in Canada in 2013 and three
oil train fires so far this year in the United States and one in Canada.
“The timing for U.P. is awkward given recent accidents and mounting public apprehension,” said
Joseph Schwieterman, a transportation sciences professor at Chicago’s DePaul University. “I am
sure there will be pressure for a go-slow approach on it, but the fact is that railroads are the best
bet to get significant amounts of natural gas to market given the decades it takes to permit and
construct pipelines.”
Details about the application are secret. A Federal Railroad Administration spokesman said
application and supporting materials are not available for public inspection during the review
process. “Federal law limits our disclosure” of which customer is requesting transport of
liquefied natural gas, Union Pacific spokesman Aaron Hunt said.
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, however, is a well-known commodity. Liquefying the fuel —
which most often moves via pipeline, truck and ship — compacts it enormously. That makes it
attractive to shippers and those who want to store large quantities. Liquefied gas takes up 1/600th
the space of the gaseous form. The liquid gas can then be converted back into its gaseous state
for use or further shipment in pipelines.
Union Pacific’s permit request comes as U.S. natural gas production is climbing, up 37 percent
since 2000. Part of the boom is the conversion of coal-burning electric plants to natural gas.
There also are 128,000 vehicles in the United States running on compressed natural gas, up 12
percent since 2010.
“It has only been a matter of time for the railroads to get in on the natural gas boom,”
Schwieterman said. “It is a fast-growing industry with fast-growing logistical needs.”
354
But some people are holding back. Eddie Scher, an officer with ForestEthics, a California-based
lobbying group that advocates the gradual elimination of fossil fuels, said that transporting
another flammable cargo on the rail network is a very poor idea.
“The rail system in America was built to connect population centers, with trains going through
every downtown in the country,” Scher said. “It was never designed to haul hazardous materials,
and in fact, you could say that if you were to design a rail system for hazardous materials, the one
we have is the opposite of the one you would design.”
Scher said federal safety rules are already out of date for oil trains and their tank cars, with
millions of gallons of oil a day riding the rails, up from nearly zero only five years ago, courtesy
of skyrocketing production from new fields in Montana and North Dakota.
“To entertain the idea of new and potentially more dangerous cargo makes no sense at all,” Scher
said.
Hauling dangerous cargo is nothing new for Union Pacific and other railroads, which haul
chlorine, explosives and sulfur.
Safety is a main point of emphasis for every cargo, said Hunt, the Union Pacific spokesman. The
national train accident rate has fallen 42 percent since 2000 and 79 percent since 1980, according
to the railroad association. At Union Pacific, derailments have fallen about 7 percent since 2010,
to three for every million miles of train travel.
“We have the same goal as everyone else, and it’s in the best interest of our customers,
shareholders and the communities where our employees and their families live, work and play to
operate as safely as possible,” Hunt said.
Contact the writer: 402-444-3197, [email protected]
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060015413
March 20, 2015 - Environmentalists play 'Whac-A-Mole' to stall
crude-by-rail projects Second of two stories.
Ellen M. Gilmer and Blake Sobczak, E&E reporters EnergyWire: Friday, March 20, 2015
When an oil company's expansion plans for Pacific Northwest crude by rail suffered a major
setback last month, environmentalists spread the news just as quickly as they could Google
"Skagit County Hearing Examiner."
355
The little-known local office about an hour north of Seattle holds the keys to land use in the area,
and environmental attorneys saw it as the best shot to stall a rail extension considered critical for
the delivery of crude oil to a nearby Shell Oil Co. refinery, but potentially disastrous for nearby
estuaries and communities.
The effort was successful: After environmental groups appealed a county-level permit for the rail
project, Skagit County Hearing Examiner Wick Dufford sent the proposal back to the drawing
board, ordering local officials to conduct an in-depth environmental impact statement to consider
the broad effects of increased crude-by-rail throughout the county.
"The environmental review done in this case assumes that the whole big ball of federal, state and
local regulations will somehow make the trains safe. And that if an accident happens, the
response efforts described on paper will result in effective clean up, so that no significant adverse
effects are experienced," Dufford wrote. "There is no proven basis for such conclusions."
The decision was an incremental but significant victory for environmental groups, sending a
signal to industry that its increasing reliance on railed-in crude could face formidable hurdles.
Skagit County is just one piece of a larger plan to expand crude-by-rail across the country to
better connect refineries and ports with prolific oil plays like North Dakota's Bakken Shale. The
use of rail to deliver crude oil has skyrocketed in recent years, rising from 9,500 tank cars of
crude in 2008 to nearly 500,000 carloads in 2014, according to industry data. Projects in
Washington and other refinery hubs aim to expand facilities and extend rail spurs to handle even
more crude deliveries.
Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said the company is "confident that we can satisfy any remaining
issues associated with the project" to add rail capacity to its Puget Sound Refinery in Skagit
County.
"This project is critical to the refinery, the hundreds of employees and contractors who depend on
Shell, and the regional economy," he said. "We do not feel it should be held to a different
standard than the crude-by-rail projects of the neighboring refineries that have been approved."
Smith added that "we all share the top priority of safety."
But the new reality of crude-by-rail traffic has environmentalists on edge. Oil train derailments in
Illinois, West Virginia, North Dakota and other places have led to fires, spills and, in one case,
lost lives. A 2013 crude-by-rail explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killed 47 people, prompting
regulators in the United States and Canada to review the inherently piecemeal rules governing
crude-by-rail transportation.
The federal government has authority over certain details, such as standards for tank cars used to
haul crude. But most expansion plans and related environmental concerns are left to local
agencies situated along oil routes. The result is a hodgepodge of permitting decisions by local
authorities following varying state laws, while a team of environmental lawyers challenges
expansion projects one by one.
356
"It's a little bit like Whac-A-Mole because there isn't a big permitting scheme," said Earthjustice
attorney Kristen Boyles, who represented six environmental groups in the Skagit County appeal.
"It makes it difficult and makes it frustrating for the public."
State laws in play
So far, the Whac-A-Mole approach is working well for environmentalists.
After three oil refineries in Washington went unopposed in building facilities to receive rail
shipments of crude oil, Boyles said environmentalists and community advocates began tracking
local land-use agencies more closely.
Earthjustice and the Quinault Indian Nation successfully challenged two proposed crude projects
in Grays Harbor County, southwest of Seattle, leading a review board to vacate permits and
require additional environmental and public health studies. A third Grays Harbor project is also
preparing a comprehensive environmental review.
The next project on environmentalists' radar is in Vancouver, Wash., just across the Columbia
River from Portland, Ore., where Savage Cos. and Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. have
proposed building a new terminal to transfer railed-in crude oil to marine tankers bound for West
Coast refineries. The Sierra Club, ForestEthics and several other groups earlier this month moved
to intervene in the state agency review process for the project, citing major threats to the
Columbia River and public health.
The key to all of these challenges is Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Similar to the National Environmental Policy Act, SEPA requires government agencies to
conduct a broad environmental impact statement for any major actions that may significantly
affect the environment.
For projects in Skagit County, Grays Harbor and now Vancouver, state and local officials
considering challenges look to SEPA to determine how rigorous environmental review must be,
based on whether projects are expected to have major impacts. To Dufford, the Skagit examiner,
the answer is plain.
"Unquestionably, the potential magnitude and duration of environmental and human harm from
oil train operations in Northwest Washington could be very great," he wrote.
Down the coast in California, environmentalists have an even stronger tool: the California
Environmental Quality Act. Considered the gold standard in state-level environmental protection
laws, CEQA has already proved useful in halting a crude-by-rail expansion project in
Sacramento.
In Kern County, a team of environmental attorneys is also relying on CEQA to appeal
construction permits for the Bakersfield Crude Terminal, a project that would ultimately receive
200 tank cars of crude oil per day. The local air quality board labeled the construction permits as
"ministerial," bypassing CEQA review, which is required only for projects considered
discretionary. A hearing is set for next month in Kern County Superior Court.
357
Earthjustice attorney Elizabeth Forsyth, who is representing environmental groups in the
Bakersfield case, said the state environmental law has been powerful in slowing down the rapid
rise of crude-by-rail operations.
"In California, we have CEQA, which is a strong tool," she said. "You can't hide from the law.
You can't site your project out in some town that you think won't oppose you."
Unified strategy?
Still, the one-at-a-time approach to opposing crude-by-rail growth is undoubtedly slow-going,
and progress comes bit by bit.
Boyles noted that Earthjustice attorneys from Washington to New York frequently strategize to
"unify" the issues and make broader advances. On tank cars, for example, environmental groups
have come together to press the Department of Transportation to bolster safety rules.
"That at least is some place where you could get improvements that could affect every one of
these proposals," she said.
But for expansion projects, the effort must still be localized.
"You have this giant sudden growth of these sort of projects, and that's the best we can do at this
point to review each of them and comment," said Forsyth, the California lawyer, who said the
end goal is to empower local agencies to control whether proposals move forward and to mitigate
the impacts when they do.
Though labor-intense, advocates say the approach has paid dividends. Projects that would have
otherwise flown under the radar are now under rigorous review, and industry players no longer
have the option of expanding facilities quietly and without public comment.
"If you hadn't had these citizens challenging these projects," Boyles said, "they'd be built already;
they'd be operating already."
The delays have set back refiners seeking to use rail to tap price-advantaged domestic crude -particularly in California.
"The West Coast is a very challenging environment," noted Lane Riggs, executive vice president
of refining operations at Valero Energy Corp., which has faced staunch environmentalist
opposition at a proposed oil-by-rail terminal in Benicia.
Riggs said in a January conference call that "we're still pretty optimistic we'll get the permit" for
the 70,000-barrels-per-day unloading terminal at its refinery there, although he added that
"timing at this point is a little bit difficult."
Facing pressure from concerned locals and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Benicia
officials last month opted to require updates to the rail project's draft environmental impact
review, further delaying a project that was originally scheduled to come online in 2013.
358
A Phillips 66 crude-by-rail proposal in San Luis Obispo County, Calif., has encountered similar
pushback. If approved, the project would add five 80-car oil trains per week to the region's track
network. The potential for more crude-by-rail shipments has drawn opposition from several local
city councils and regional politicians, despite Phillips 66's pledge to use only newer-model tank
cars (EnergyWire, Jan. 27).
Some town leaders have also separately taken action against railroads bringing oil traffic through
their neighborhoods, although federally pre-emptive laws leave cities vulnerable to legal
challenges (EnergyWire, March 19).
'Business as usual'
Local, often environmentalist-driven opposition is seen as "business as usual" within the refining
industry, according to Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers.
"This is just another extension of the environmental playbook to try to obfuscate and delay," said
Drevna, whose trade group represents the largest U.S. refiners. "We've been dealing with that for
years, and we're going to continue to be dealing with it."
While Drevna said he doesn't see lawsuits "holding up any of the plans" for refiners to improve
access to North American oil production, environmentalists chalk up each slowdown to a victory.
In New York, a plan to expand a key crude-by-rail conduit to East Coast refiners has been held in
limbo for over a year at the Port of Albany, owing to an environmentalist lawsuit and closer
public scrutiny.
The proposal by fuel logistics firm Global Partners LP would have added a boiler room to an
existing facility to process heavier crude from Canada. But advocacy groups including
Riverkeeper have challenged the company's operating air permit, calling for more review by New
York's Department of Environmental Conservation (EnergyWire, Jan. 13, 2014).
"All of the actions we've taken with Earthjustice and others have really ground to a halt DEC's
repeated approvals of these minor modifications," said Kate Hudson, watershed program director
for Riverkeeper. "We have not seen tar sands. ... The river has been spared that threat for a yearplus, at this point.
"We certainly have no regrets," she said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-paglia/top-ten-questions-about-oil-trains_b_6896868.html
http://www.forestethics.org/blog/top-ten-questions-about-oil-trains
359
March 20, 2015 - Top 10 Questions About Oil Trains: Industry
Lobbies for Weak Rules While Derailment Fire Rages
Posted: 03/19/2015 1:59 pm EDT Updated: 03/20/2015 2:59 pm EDT
Todd Paglia Executive Director, ForestEthics
On Friday, March 6, while an oil train explosion in Illinois was still sending flames and black
smoke into the air, railroad agents were in Washington, DC lobbying to weaken new train safety
standards. Safer brakes are "extremely costly..." they told White House officials, and explained in
great detail why speed limits are impractical. Like the auto industry resisting seatbelts, the rail
industry is on the wrong track when it comes to safety.
In the last month, there have been six derailments of crude oil trains in the U.S. and Canada -three of them ignited, sending flames and mushroom clouds hundreds of feet into the air. Luckily,
these were in relatively remote locations and no one was killed.
These disasters are not an aberration -- oil train traffic is skyrocketing, which means more
derailments and more explosions. The oil and rail industries hope to increase further the amount
of crude oil barreling down the tracks in the coming years. Before that happens, ForestEthics has
some questions we'd like to see the Obama administration ask the army of lobbyists who are
trying to push the bar on safety even lower than it already is:
When did trains start exploding?
Rail transportation of crude oil is growing rapidly and dangerously -- from fewer than 10,000
carloads in 2008 to nearly half a million in 2014 -- for two reasons: Bakken oil from North
Dakota and Canadian tar sands. The North American boom means oil companies are trying to
frack and mine more of this extreme oil, crude that is high in carbon, difficult and expensive to
produce, and dangerous to transport.
Are cities and towns with rail lines safe?
With the exception of Capitol Hill (the rail industry seems to be sparing Washington, DC) most
routing is done specifically throughout cities and towns. No, the oil and rail industries are
probably not purposely targeting us, it's just that the rails in populated places tend to be better
maintained and rated for heavier cargoes. The sane thing to do would be to stop hauling crude oil
if it can't be transported safely. A far distant next best is to make these trains as safe as possible
and require rerouting around cities and water supplies.
What is the government doing?
Not nearly enough. While 100-plus car trains full of an explosive crude roll through our towns,
the U.S. government is barely moving, bogged down by nearly 100 of Washington's most
expensive K-Street lobbyists. In fall 2014, ForestEthics, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club sued
the Department of Transportation to speed up new safety standards on oil trains. We called the
trains an imminent danger to public safety. The federal government responded by once again
delaying their decision on new rules that have been in the works for years.
360
What is the slowest speed at which an oil explosion could happen?
An oil tank car can catch fire and explode in an accident at zero miles per hour. Assuming a
slightly raised rail bed, an oil car that tips over while standing still (this can and has happened on
poorly maintained rails) will strike the ground going approximately 16 miles per hour -- more
than fast enough to breach the tank, spark, and ignite if it hits a rock, a curb, any hard protrusion.
Do firefighters know when and where oil trains are moving?
First responders do not know when, where, how much oil, and what kind is coming through their
town. The US Department of Transportation ordered that railroads and oil companies make this
information public. But only for trains carrying more than a million gallons of Bakken crude, and
even this information is not being made public on a consistent basis.
How do you extinguish oil train fire?
You don't put out an oil train fire; nobody does. Oil fires require specialized foam, which fire
departments do not have in nearly sufficient supply to fight the fire from even a single 30,000
gallon tank car. All firefighters can do is evacuate those in danger, move outside the one mile
blast zone and let the fire burn out, which can take days. In Illinois, firefighters unloaded their
equipment to fight an oil train fire, realized the danger and left behind $10,000 in equipment
getting out of harm's way. You can prevent these fires by banning oil trains -- but you can't fight
these fires once they happen.
The older oil cars are definitely unsafe, what about the newer ones?
The antiquated DOT-111 tank cars make up 80 percent of the fleet in the U.S. -- U.S. rail safety
officials first called them "inadequate" to haul crude oil more than 20 years ago. The jury is now
in on the newer CPC-1232 tank cars and they are not much safer. The derailments and explosions
in West Virginia and Illinois were 1232s traveling at or below the speed limit. In fact, the former
head of the federal rail safety agency said in a radio interview that the recent derailments and
fires were "the last nail in the coffin" for the CPC-1232 as an alternative to DOT-111 for oil
transport.
We know that Bakken crude explodes; does tar sands explode?
Ordinarily it might not, but to move tar sands by rail (or pipeline for that matter) you have to mix
in highly flammable, toxic diluents (light petroleum products like propane.) So if it's on a train or
in a pipeline the flashpoint for tar sands crude is lower than for Bakken oil. The oil train
explosion on February 16, 2015 in Ontario, Canada occurred in -40 degrees F weather -- proving
that this stuff can ignite even in arctic cold. So not only is tar sands the dirtiest oil on Earth, but
also it may well be the most dangerous too.
Do I live in the Blast Zone?
ForestEthics used oil rail routes from industry, Google maps, and census data to calculate that 25
million Americans live in the oil train blast zone -- the dangerous evacuation zone in the case of
an oil train derailment and fire. You can use the map to see if your home, office, school, or
favorite natural area, landmark or sports stadium is in danger. Visit www.blast-zone.org.
What's the solution?
The solution is to ban oil trains. If you can't do something safely, you shouldn't do it at all. This
cargo is too dangerous to our families, our cities, our drinking water, our wildlife and our
361
climate. The extreme crude carried on trains is only a tiny fraction of the oil we use each day as a
nation. So while we transition our economy to clean energy and get beyond all oil, we should
leave this extreme oil from Alberta and North Dakota in the ground.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crude-oil-train-derailments-2015-3
March 20, 2015 - US oil train accidents won't go away any time soon

Shane Ferro
REUTERS/TSBCanadaSmoke rises from fires caused by the derailment of a CN Railway train
carrying crude oil near the northern Ontario community of Gogama, Ontario, March 7, 2015.
There have been several high-profile oil-by-rail accidents in the last couple of months.
Should we be worried about shipping crude oil by rail?
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is that it's complicated. And this mode of transporting oil isn't going away
anytime soon.
The rate of accidents has actually declined
Transporting crude oil involves a lot of different interests. On one hand, there's a lot of money
involved. Oil is a huge part of the national economy, and it needs to get from its source, largely
in the Midwestern and Southern US, to refineries on the East and West coasts. Pipelines can't
transport it all, and rail is the next best option.
Even as use of rail is increasing, the rate of of accidents nationwide have actually been going
down. This chart, from Reuters' analyst John Kemp, shows that train accidents have been
declining pretty steadily since 2004:
362
John
Kemp/Reuters
On the other hand, even a 0.001% failure rate is a big deal. Rail cars carrying crude oil have a
tendency to explode in flames when they derail. And the number of rail cars carrying crude has
boomed in the last six years. Almost 500,000 carloads of crude oil were transported by rail in
2014, up from 9,500 in 2008. It now accounts for "1.6% of total carloads for U.S. railroads,"
according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
Rail tankers carrying crude go through cities and along
rivers
Railroad infrastructure was built to connect cities. And because they connect people, they go
through heavily populated areas rather than around them.
Railroads also often wind along rivers, because that's where it's easiest to build. When a train
derailed in Illinois earlier this month, hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude threatened the
Mississippi River.
Ryan Remiorz/ReutersWorkers work on the site of the train wreck in Lac Megantic, July 16,
2013.
Ed Greenberg, a spokesperson for the AAR told Business Insider, "no accident big or small is
acceptable, anytime there is an incident the industry takes steps to learn from it to prevent it from
happening." The AAR will spend $29 billion to upgrade rail infrastructure in 2015, and it has
reduced maximum speeds for crude-carrying trains to 40 mph through high-threat urban areas.
363
The safety standards could improve
But an op-ed in the New York Times by Marcus Stern questioned the safety of the railroad
infrastructure after the Illinois derailment:
...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.
Crude oil wasn't even considered a hazardous material until a few years ago, according to David
Willauer, who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Crude Oil Transportation at the
Transportation Research Board and the transportation manager at IEM, a global security
consulting firm. But because of the huge increase in the volume being transported, it now
presents a problem for railroads. (The same can be said for ethanol — also newly produced and
transported in large quantities, as well as highly flammable — by the way.)
Marcus Constantino/ReutersA CSX Corp train burns after derailment in Mount Carbon, West
Virginia pictured across the Kanawha River in Boomer, West Virginia, February 16, 2015.
Shale crude oil is more combustible
And the crude coming from the shale basins, a big part of American production, is typically
lighter, with more butane gas in it than other kinds of oil, which makes it more flammable. When
a train derails, it creates a ton of heat. If the steel outer shell of the car gets punctured, it's likely
to be hot enough to start a fire, which causes the whole care to explode. The heat from that
explosion causes the surrounding cars to warp and tear, leaking oil, which catches on fire,
creating more explosions. Pretty soon you've got multiple cars exploding and a giant oil or
ethanol fire.
"The kinds of fires we've been seeing have just been monumental," says Willauer. And that is the
big problem. Fighting an oil fire isn't the same as fighting a house fire.
He says that the biggest concern for the TRB's crude oil subcommittee right now is getting
information out there to emergency responders around the country about what to do if one of
these fires happens in their response area.
The biggest crude-by-rail disaster in recent memory was at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, where 47
people died in 2013. The largest source of casualties, Willauer explained, was at a bar near where
the train derailed.
"People came out to watch the fired," he explained, and first responders "didn't get people out in
time." When the cars exploded, it was too late.
364
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/us-usa-washington-trainidUSKBN0MG2GT20150320
March 20, 2015 - BNSF Railway faces fines in Washington state over
hazardous spills
SEATTLE Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:30pm EDT
(Reuters) - Washington state regulators have recommended BNSF Railway be fined $700,000 for
not properly disclosing that its trains had spilled crude oil and other hazardous materials on 14
occasions over four months, officials said on Friday.
BNSF rail cars leaked hazardous material in 16 separate incidents between November and March
but in only two cases were the spills reported to state officials correctly, according to a formal
complaint by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
In eight incidents, the leaks were not reported at all, commission spokeswoman Amanda
Maxwell said.
The list of materials spilled from BNSF trains includes crude oil, lube oil, diesel fuel and
hazardous solid waste, according to the complaint.
State safety rules require railroads make a telephone report of the release of a hazardous material
within 30 minutes of learning of the incident in order to assess environmental impact and ensure
public safety but the railroad did not meet that deadline in several spills, the commission said.
BNSF, the largest railroad company operating in Washington, had been repeatedly reminded of
the rules since last fall, Maxwell said. BNSF said it was reviewing the complaint and updating its
notification guidelines.
"There is nothing more important to us than safely transporting all of the commodities we carry,"
spokesman Gus Melonas said in a statement. "We believed we were complying in good faith with
the requirements from our agency partners."
The $700,000 fine was the recommendation of the staff of Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission and must be approved by the board before it is levied.
The complaint against BNSF comes amid a heightened national focus on rail safety following a
series of derailments involving trains hauling crude oil that resulted in explosions and fires.
Washington state has seen a rapid spike in trains hauling oil in the past four years, with as many
as 19 unit trains carrying as much as 3 million gallons of Bakken crude now rolling through the
state each week.
(Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Bill Trott)
365
http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-derailment-emergency-response-20150321story.html?dssReturn#page=1&z=62881
March 21, 2015 - Virginia, CSX offer advice for crude-by-rail
accidents
By Tamara Dietrich tdietrich@dailypress.
A big lesson from the crude oil train that derailed in Lynchburg last April, sparked a raging fire
and spilled fuel into the James River is this: Get ready for the next one.
Not that emergency response experts are predicting another derailment in Virginia, but since up
to five CSX trains each week carry Bakken crude across the width of the state to a fuel terminal
in Yorktown, the possibility exists.
And residents should understand the risks, how to mitigate them and how to respond.
"I would think they would engage with their emergency manager for that region and say, 'Hey,
what do we need to know?' " said Wade Collins, hazardous materials supervisor with the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management (VDEM). " 'What do we need to do? How are we
prepared for that?' "
Collins regaled first-responders from around the area with a blow-by-blow of the combined
emergency response to the Lynchburg derailment, part of a presentation Friday morning at the
2015 Virginia Emergency Management Symposium in Hampton. The symposium ran from
Wednesday through Friday.
Appearing with him was Bryan Rhode, vice president for state government affairs for the MidAtlantic region for CSX Transportation. Rhode spoke on measures that CSX and the industry are
taking to prevent derailments, the safety training they offer and the ways they assist in the
response when an accident occurs.
Those measures include reducing maximum train speeds, enhancing braking systems, conducting
more track inspections, offering training for first-responders around the country, pressing for
improved tank car regulations and better testing and classification for Bakken crude oil, which is
more volatile than typical crude.
"Safety is our absolutely No. 1 priority," said Rhode, a former Virginia secretary for public safety.
"Nothing takes a back seat to safety.
Lynchburg was lucky
The Lynchburg derailment made national headlines when 17 cars out of a 105-car tanker train
carrying about 3 million gallons of crude suddenly jumped the tracks in the downtown area.
366
Three tankers careened down the banks of the James River and into the water. One tanker burst
open, spilling its fuel.
Something sparked, setting off a fireball so intense it burned itself out after 49 minutes, Collins
said.
But Lynchburg was lucky.
"If we had to have a crude oil derailment in Virginia, everything was in our favor that day,
actually," Collins said.
Two days of rain had put the James at flood stage, which helped douse the flames and cool the
tankers.
The weather was bad, so residents weren't milling at the riverside park. No anglers were hanging
out at popular fishing holes.
And the tankers ran into the river rather than crash into the commercial area.
Of the 30,000 gallons of fuel contained in the broken tanker, Collins said 29,245 gallons were
consumed by the fire. Another 390 gallons were released to the river, and less than 200 gallons
into the soil. What little remained was recovered.
And no one was hurt.
Emergency responders at the scene ranged from the local fire department to state hazardous
materials teams, the National Guard to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CSX
immediately deployed its own group of hazardous materials professionals and special agents to
set up an outreach center for local residents and business owners impacted by the accident.
"We bring an enormous amount of resources to the table," Rhode said. "If we have an incident,
we're going to be there from that point until it is effectively resolved. And we're going to get the
job done."
Responders had to evacuate the area, notify local municipalities, identify water intakes
downstream and access points on the river for vehicles and boats. Booms were spread across the
river to stop the flow of residual oil.
The toppled tanker cars still on the tracks were up-righted, put on flatbed cars and shipped off.
The ones in the water were drained of fuel, then hauled from the river.
Contractors hired by state and federal authorities as well as CSX began testing the water and soil.
Collins said monthly tests are still conducted.
"They monitored it very closely," Collins said. "They looked for fish kill or damage or injury, and
we found nothing."
The initial response took nine days and has cost about $4 million, he said. The investigation into
the cause of the derailment is still ongoing.
367
Be prepared
Among the lessons learned, Collins said, is the value of relationships, partnerships and training.
And keeping up on current issues.
"Know what's coming through your community," he said.
And know if you have the resources to respond to a rail emergency.
"As we look along that crude oil route, many of those jurisdictions are rural," Collins said. "They
have volunteer emergency services. They may or may not have the capability to do an effective
response. If you know you don't have that capability, then be planning — where can I get that?"
CSX offers hazardous materials safety training at the local level, and hosts a trainer training
facility in Pueblo, Colo., that handles 4,000 first-responders a year, said Rhode. Tuition and
travel costs are covered.
The company hosted a three-day safety training event in Richmond last year and will try to
conduct another in Virginia next year. It also offers online training opportunities on its website.
On Thursday, Rhode said, CSX presented a $25,000 donation to the Virginia Hazardous
Materials Training Facility in York County.
The rail company also offers a system "unique" in the industry, that provides emergency response
officials near real-time information on what's on a particular train, he said. The company is also
piloting a mobile app for first-responders to get that information "when you need it."
Letting the public know what's being carried on a train, however, is more problematic.
"Railroads are not allowed to disseminate customer information, but are able to do it in terms of
our emergency response," Rhode said. "It's a security matter. You don't want real-time
information about very hazardous materials necessarily out there in the wrong hands."
CSX operates in 23 states and two provinces of Canada. It runs 13,000 trains a day, two of which
carry crude oil.
In Virginia, it operates 2,000 miles of track and four major rail yards, including one in Newport
News. The company employs 1,200 people in the state. About 40 percent of the cargo unloaded
at the Port of Virginia is transported on CSX trains, Rhode said.
Most of that cargo is benign. But when it comes to hazardous materials, Collins cautioned against
emergency responders focusing exclusively on the risks of Bakken crude.
"There's a whole host of commodities that railroads are shipping through your area," Collins said.
"You're not on the crude oil route? We still have unit trains with ethanol, anhydrous ammonia,
chlorine. So there are a lot of hazards associated with the commodities shipped by rail. Avoid
tunnel vision."
368
Rail Industry Trends Article from March 2015 issue of Progressive Railroading magazine
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/article/What-can-states-do-topromote-rail-safety-guest-comment--43745
March 2015 - What can states do to promote rail safety? (guest
comment)
By Kevin Sheys, a partner in the law firm of Nossaman LLP
In June 2014, California enacted SB 861, which purports to grant California's Office of Spill
Prevention and Response (California OSPR) authority to regulate crude-oil rail shipments in the
state. SB 861 requires railroads to demonstrate financial fitness as a precondition to operating
within the state, and to submit spill contingency plans and other reports to the state. Failure to
comply with these requirements makes railroads liable for civil and criminal fines.
In October 2014, the Association of American Railroads (along with BNSF Railway Co. and
Union Pacific Railroad) sued California OSPR in federal court to strike down SB 861. According
to the AAR, SB 861 is preempted by federal law "several times over." For its part, California
OSPR argues the lawsuit is premature because without implementing regulations, there is no
threat of enforcement and the court cannot assess whether SB 861 overlaps with federal law. The
briefs are in, and the case is now before a judge. Industry watchers eagerly await a decision.
Under the federal Railroad Safety Act, once the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (acting through
the Federal Railroad Administration) issues a railroad safety rule or order covering a subject,
states may adopt and enforce their own railroad safety laws only when that law is necessary to
address a local safety hazard, is not incompatible with the federal safety law and does not
unreasonably burden interstate commerce. These are very narrow circumstances. (The Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act has a more detailed, but equally potent preemption provision.)
An 'Audacious' Attempt
We have a comprehensive array of federal railroad safety laws, enforced by the FRA and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, covering a broad range of activities
related to railroad safety and hazardous materials transportation, including oil spill contingency
planning. We have laws and rules covering design and operation of locomotives and rail cars,
and soon will have new federal rules governing the design of tank cars used to move crude by rail
and operation of certain crude oil unit trains.
SB 861 is by no means the only recent attempt by a state to regulate interstate rail transportation,
but it is the most audacious attempt since 2005, when the District of Columbia passed an
ordinance banning all rail (and truck) hazardous material shipments within 2.2 miles of the U.S.
Capitol. The D.C. Circuit held that the ordinance was preempted by the federal Railroad Safety
Act. The D.C. ordinance was doomed from inception and SB 861 is, too. It is possible the judge
369
will want to wait for the implementing regulations, but either now or later, SB 861 will be struck
down.
Enough about law and SB 861 — my question is about policy and good government. All states
want to promote rail safety, particularly the safe movement of crude oil by rail in light of the
tragic Lac-Megantic derailment. But this prompts a few states to enact railroad safety laws that
are obviously preempted under our Constitution and federal system. This seems futile. So I ask:
What can states do instead to promote rail safety?
Under the federal State Rail Safety Participation Program, states are eligible to perform
inspections and investigations to ensure that railroads are adhering to federal railroad safety
requirements. The FRA can delegate all or part of its investigatory and surveillance authority to
the states. The federal government retains authority to establish the standards, but states can play
a significant role in enforcing those standards, and many states do. However, the State Rail
Safety Participation Program is underutilized. Twenty states do not participate at all and the
states that do participate together provide only 179 inspectors (at last count). The program has
had its ups and downs over the years, but presently is very strong.
California participates in the program. Would the money spent to defend doomed SB 861 have
been better spent to expand California's participation in the program? Perhaps. To elected state
officials and program administrators tempted to follow California's path, I respectfully suggest
that instead, you take a look (or a new look) at the State Rail Safety Participation Program.
Kevin Sheys is a partner in the law firm of Nossaman LLP and focuses his practice on railroad
infrastructure projects and regulatory issues. Nossaman does not represent any party in the
Association of American Railroads suit mentioned in this article and views expressed herein are
those of the author. Contact him at [email protected].
370
From Wikipedia - Lac-Mégantic rail disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Date
Time
Location
Coordinates
Country
Operator
Type of
incident
Cause
Trains
Deaths
Damage
Details
July 6, 2013
01:15 EDT (05:15 UTC)
Lac-Mégantic, Quebec
45°34′40″N 70°53′6″WCoordinates:
45°34′40″N 70°53′6″W
Canada
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway
Derailment of a runaway train
Combination of neglected defective
locomotive, poor maintenance, driver
error, flawed operating procedures,
weak regulatory oversight, lack of
safety redundancy
Statistics
1
47 (42 confirmed, 5 presumed)
More than 30 buildings destroyed, 36
to be demolished due to contamination
The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, located in the Eastern
Townships of the Canadian province of Quebec, at approximately 01:15 EDT,[1][2] on July 6,
2013, when an unattended 74-car[3][4][5][6][7] freight train carrying Bakken formation crude oil ran
away and derailed, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-two people
were confirmed dead, with five more missing and presumed dead.[8] More than 30 buildings in
the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed[2] and all but three of the
thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings are to be demolished due to petroleum contamination
of the townsite.[9] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre (0.62 mi) blast radius.[10]
The death toll of 47 due to the crash and resultant explosion makes it the fourth-deadliest rail
accident in Canadian history,[11] and the deadliest involving a non-passenger train. It is also the
371
deadliest rail accident since Canada's confederation in 1867. The last Canadian rail accident to
have a higher death toll was the St-Hilaire train disaster in 1864.[12]
Background
The route
The railway line passing through Lac-Mégantic is owned by the United States-based Montreal,
Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA). The MMA has owned and operated a former Canadian
Pacific Railway main line since January 2003, running between Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu,
Quebec, in the west and Brownville Junction, Maine, in the east.[13]
The rail line through Lac-Mégantic and across Maine was built in the late 1880s as part of the
final link in CPR's transcontinental system between Montreal, Quebec and Saint John, New
Brunswick with the section east of Lac-Mégantic known as the International Railway of Maine.
Until December 1994 the line hosted VIA Rail's Atlantic passenger train as well as CPR freight
service. A 1970s proposal to reroute the line to bypass downtown Lac-Mégantic was never
implemented due to cost.[14] The rail line was owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) until
being sold in segments in January 1995. VIA Rail discontinued passenger service on this route in
December 1994 due to the pending change in ownership as VIA regulations at that time
prohibited its passenger trains from operating on tracks that weren't owned by either of Canada's
two national railway companies. The eastern half of the line between Brownville Junction and
Saint John was sold to the industrial conglomerate J.D. Irving which established two
subsidiaries, the Eastern Maine Railway and New Brunswick Southern Railway. The western
half of the line between Brownville Junction toward Montreal was sold to a U.S.-based company
called Iron Road Railways, which established a subsidiary called Canadian American Railroad.
Iron Road Railways declared bankruptcy for its subsidiary company in fall 2002. The former
CPR main line from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu to Brownville Junction was sold to Rail World Inc.
in January 2003. Rail World formed the MMA as a subsidiary and engaged in aggressive cost
cutting[15][16] for freight train operations and continued to defer maintenance on the tracks to the
point where much of the track is now in marginal condition.[17]
Transport Canada permits a railway line to remain in service with as few as five solid ties
(British English = sleepers) and fourteen damaged ties in a 39 feet (12 m) section of track,[18]
provided trains are limited to 10 mph (16 km/h) on straight flat track.[19] MMA failed to take
advantage of millions of dollars of available federal/provincial 2:1 matching infrastructure grants
under a 2007 program as track conditions on the MMA line in Quebec continued to deteriorate.
By 2013, speed reductions were required on 23 portions of the line, including a 5 mph (8.0 km/h)
limit at Sherbrooke yard and 10 miles per hour (16 km/h) on a 11 miles (18 km) stretch east of
Magog.[20]
372
The train
The freight train was designated "MMA 2" and was 4,701 ft (1,433 m) long and weighed 10,287
tonnes (10,125 long tons; 11,339 short tons).[3][4] The train was composed of five head-end
locomotives, one remote-control "VB" car (a former caboose) used to house the Locotrol
equipment necessary for MMA’s single engineer train operation, one loaded box car used as a
buffer car followed by 72 non-pressure dangerous goods DOT-111 tank cars[21] loaded with
petroleum crude oil (Class 3, UN 1267). Each tank car was filled with 113,000 litres
(25,000 imp gal; 30,000 US gal) of crude oil.[22][23][24]
The oil, shipped by World Fuel Services subsidiary Dakota Plains Holdings Incorporated from
New Town, North Dakota,[25] originated from the Bakken formation.[26] The destination was the
Irving Oil Refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick.[27] Shipment of the oil was contracted to
Canadian Pacific Railway, which transported the oil on CPR tracks from North Dakota to the
CPR yard in Côte-Saint-Luc, a suburb of Montreal.[28][29] CPR sub-contracted MMA to transport
the oil from the CPR yard in Côte Saint-Luc to the MMA yard in Brownville Junction. CPR also
sub-contracted New Brunswick Southern Railway to transport the oil from the MMA yard in
Brownville Junction to the final destination at the refinery in Saint John. Ministry of Transport
senior inspector Marc Grignon opines that “When the shipper is based outside Canada, the
importer becomes the shipper.” Irving Oil Commercial G.P. is the shipper in this case.[30] 3,830
rail cars of Bakken crude were shipped by 67 trains in the 9-month period preceding the
derailment.[30]
In 2009, in the United States, 69% of the tank car fleet was composed of DOT-111A cars. In
Canada, the same car (under the designation CTC-111A) represents close to 80% of the fleet.[31]
The National Transportation Safety Board noted that the cars "have a high incidence of tank
failures during accidents",[32] citing in 2009 their "inadequate design" as a factor in a fatal rail
collision outside Rockford, Illinois.[33] Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were
made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst
fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost.[33] Since 2011,
the Canadian government has required tank cars with a thicker shell, though older models are
still allowed to operate.[34]
Freight trains operated by MMA were allowed (not "permitted", see below) by regulators in
Canada (Transport Canada) and the United States (Federal Railroad Administration) to have
Single Person Train Operation (SPTO, alternately OPTO) status (1 operator). The "permit"
process, which requires public input, was not followed. The Canadian regulator and the MMA
entered into a negotiation process at the culmination of which, sometime before the second week
of July 2012, the government allowed MMA to reduce their manpower to SPTO. An average of
80 tankcars per train was carried on this route[30] under the supervision of one person only. The
Maine regulator had already allowed SPTO status before the first week of April 2012.[35][36][37]
The use of SPTO for MMA freight trains was a cost-cutting move for which the railway
company has received much criticism. In May 2010, former MMA engineer Jarod Briggs of
Millinocket, Maine explained to the Bangor Daily News that “so much could happen in a 12hour shift on one of these trains, such as a washed-out track, downed trees or mechanical failure.
What if the engineer onboard were to encounter a medical problem? Who is going to know about
373
it? If there is a fire engine or an ambulance needing to get by a train or a crossing when that
happens, it could take hours.”[38] Briggs left MMA to work for another railway in 2007; while he
described the lone crew member involved in the Lac-Mégantic derailment as "a very good
engineer, one of the better on the property",[39] he has long expressed safety concerns about the
company's overall train operations because “if you have two people watching you can catch a
mistake. It was all about cutting, cutting, cutting.”[40]
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) looked at whether single-person train
operations played a role in the accident. After looking at the circumstances that night, the
investigation was not able to conclude whether having another crew member would have
prevented the accident.[41]
Air brakes on the train are supplied with air from a compressor on each locomotive. When a
locomotive is shut off, the compressor no longer supplies the brake system with air. An air brake
pipe connects to each car and locomotive on the train. When air leaks from the various
components, the air pressure drops. If the system is not recharged with air, the locomotive air
brakes will become ineffective and provide no braking force. When the air brake control valves
sense a drop in pressure in the brake pipe, they are designed to activate the brakes on each car.
However, if the rate of leakage is slow and steady, the automatic brakes may not be applied as in
the case of the Lac-Mégantic accident.[41] The train had locomotives that could automatically
restart the air-brake system in the event of a brake failure - provided these locomotives were not
shut down as they would be. Also, the TSB found that the “reset safety control” on the lead
locomotive was not wired to set the entire train’s brakes in the event of an engine failure.[42][43]
In addition to air brake systems, all locomotives and rail cars are equipped with at least one hand
brake. This is a mechanical device that applies brake shoes to the wheels to prevent them from
moving. The effectiveness of hand brakes depends on several factors, including their age, their
maintained condition, their application in conjunction with air brakes, and the force exerted by
the person applying the hand brake, which can vary widely. The TSB estimated that somewhere
between 17 to 26 hand brakes would have been needed to secure the train.[41]
Chronology
Eight months prior to the derailment
In October 2012, eight months before this accident, the lead locomotive (5017) was sent to
MMA's repair shop following an engine failure. Because of the time and cost for a standard
repair, and the pressure to return the locomotive to service, the engine was repaired with an
epoxy-like material that lacked the required strength and durability. This material failed in
service, leading to engine surges and excessive black and white smoke. Eventually, oil began to
accumulate in the body of the turbocharger, where it overheated and caught fire on the night of
the derailment.[41]
374
Events shortly prior to the derailment
The freight train "MMA 2" departed the CPR yard in Côte Saint-Luc[28][44] on July 5 earlier in the
day and subsequently changed crews at the MMA yard in Farnham.[45] "MMA 2" departed
Farnham and stopped at the designated MMA crew change point in Nantes at approximately
23:00. Nantes is located 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) west of Lac-Mégantic.
The engineer parked the freight train on the main line by setting the brakes and followed standard
procedure by shutting down four of the five locomotives.[46] The engineer, who was the lone
crew member under the MMA's work rules, which had been discussed with Transport
Canada,[47][not in citation given] could not park the train on the adjacent siding because MMA used it
routinely to store empty boxcars for Tafisa, a particleboard factory located in Lac-Mégantic's
industrial park.[48][49] The Nantes siding has a derail that could have stopped the train from
accidentally departing.[50] According to Transport Canada, it is unusual to leave an unattended
train parked on a main line,[51] but there were no regulations in place to prevent that
behaviour.[52]
The engineer left the lead locomotive, #5017, running to keep air pressure supplied to the train's
air brakes and also applied a number of manual hand brakes.[53] Yves Bourdon, a member of the
MMA's Board of Directors, stated that the air brakes of all locomotives and freight cars had been
activated, as well as manual hand brakes on 5 locomotives and 10 of the 72 freight cars.[54]
However, the TSB agrees with a July 6 statement by the train's engineer to police that he set hand
brakes on just the five locomotive engines, a buffer car and a car housing the remote control
apparatus.[41][55] The engineer also attempted a brake test but incorrectly left the locomotive air
brakes on; this gave the false impression that the hand brakes alone would hold the train.[41]
The engineer then contacted the rail traffic controller in Farnham, Quebec, to advise that the train
was secure. Next, the engineer contacted the rail traffic controller in Bangor, Maine to report that
the lead locomotive had experienced mechanical difficulties throughout the trip and that
excessive black and white smoke was coming from its smoke stack. Expecting the smoke to
settle, they agreed to deal with the situation the following morning.[41]
Section 112 of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules states "when equipment is left at any point a
sufficient number of hand brakes must be applied to prevent it from moving" and "the
effectiveness of the hand brakes must be tested” before relying on their retarding force.[56] The
engineer tests the handbrakes by seeing if the train budges when trying to push and pull the train
with locomotive power.[24] If a train is left on an incline, the number of handbrakes needed to
hold the train increases. It takes 2–3 minutes per car to set the hand brakes.[24] The track from
Nantes to Lac-Mégantic is downhill on a 1.2% grade.[22] Nantes is 515 metres (1,690 ft) above
sea level, Lac Mégantic is 108 m (354 ft) lower at 407 m (1,335 ft). The MMA claimed that its
braking policy required the activation of hand brakes on the five locomotives and 11 freight cars,
or 20.5% of the total train.[57] However, the TSB confirmed evidence in the criminal charges
citing MMA procedures requiring nine brakes to hold a 70-79 car train.[41][55] The TSB concluded
that a minimum of 17 and possibly as many as 26 hand brakes would have been needed to secure
the train, depending on the amount of force with which they had been applied.[41] Transport
Canada does not validate the special instructions of a railway company or give any specific
guidance on how many brakes must be applied for parked freight trains.[58] While Transport
375
Canada had repeatedly reprimanded MMA from 2004 to 2009 and in 2011 and 2012 for
violations of CROR Section 112 handbrake requirements on parked trains in Nantes, no fines had
been issued for the infractions.[59]
The TSB found that the MMA's operating plan was to leave the train parked on the main line,
unattended, with an unlocked locomotive cab, alongside a public highway where it was
accessible to the general public, with no additional protection.[60] However, there were no rules
against leaving a train unlocked, running and unattended, even if it contains dangerous materials
and is stopped on a main rail line, on a hill just next to a residential area.[61]
After finishing his work, the engineer departed by taxi for a local hotel, l'Eau Berge in downtown
Lac-Mégantic,[62] for the night.[63] While en route to the hotel, the engineer told the taxi driver
that he felt unsafe leaving a locomotive running while it was spitting oil and thick, black smoke.
He said he wanted to call the US office of the MMA (in Hermon, Maine) as they would be able
to give him other directives.[64] Taxi driver André Turcotte described the engineer as covered in
droplets of oil, which also covered the taxi's windscreen.[65]
The train traveled 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) down a descending grade from Nantes to Lac-Mégantic.
Witnesses recall having seen the train seemingly unattended and in distress around 22:45 that
night.[66] People driving on the road that parallels the rail line near Nantes, recall seeing the train
and having to slow down as they passed by the locomotives where there was a thick dark blue
cloud of diesel smoke being emitted as well as sparks coming out of a locomotive's exhaust,[66]
due to a broken piston in the locomotive's diesel engine.[67] According to the TSB, the MMA's
rail traffic controller was warned of the train having technical difficulties while the train was still
in Nantes on the evening of Friday, July 5.[68] After the engineer had departed, the Nantes Fire
Department as well as a police officer from the Sûreté du Québec's Lac-Mégantic detachment
responded to a 911 call from a citizen at 23:50 who reported a fire on the first locomotive;[3]
according to Nantes Fire Chief Patrick Lambert, "We shut down the engine before fighting the
fire. Our protocol calls for us to shut down an engine because it is the only way to stop the fuel
from circulating into the fire."[69] The fire department extinguished the blaze and notified the
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway's rail traffic controller in Farnham. MMA did not grant
permission to the engineer to return to the scene, instead summoning a track maintenance
foreman unfamiliar with the operation of railway air brakes.[55] By 00:13 two MMA track
maintenance employees had arrived from Lac-Mégantic; the Nantes firefighters left the scene as
the MMA employees confirmed to the police officer and to the Farnham rail traffic controller
that the train was safe.[70]
376
The MMA has alleged that the lead locomotive was tampered with after the engineer had left;
that the diesel engine was shut down, thereby disabling the compressor powering the air brakes,
which allowed the train to roll downhill from Nantes into Lac-Mégantic once the air pressure
dropped in the reservoirs on the cars.[46] Teamsters Canada Rail Conference vice-president Doug
Finnson disputed this theory, stating that the key braking system on a stopped, unsupervised train
are the hand brakes, which are completely independent from the motor-powered compressor that
feeds the air brakes.[71]
Derailment and explosion
Area affected by the fires
With all the locomotives shut down, the air compressor no longer supplied air to the air brake
system. As air leaked from the brake system, the main air reservoirs were slowly depleted,
gradually reducing the effectiveness of the locomotive air brakes. At 00:56, the air pressure had
dropped to a point at which the combination of locomotive air brakes and hand brakes could no
longer hold the train, and it began to roll downhill toward Lac-Mégantic, just over seven miles
away.[41][72] A witness recalled watching the train moving slowly toward Lac-Mégantic without
the locomotive lights on.[73] The track was not equipped with signals to alert the rail traffic
controller to the presence of a runaway train.[48] The train entered the town of Lac-Mégantic at
high speed.[74] The train derailed in downtown Lac-Mégantic at 01:14.[1][75] The locomotives and
the VB car were found intact, separated from the rest of the train approximately 800 metres
(0.50 mi) east of the derailment site.[76] The equipment that derailed included 63 of the 72 tank
cars as well as the buffer car. Nine tank cars at the rear of the train remained on the track and
were pulled away from the derailment site and did not explode. Almost all of the derailed tank
cars were damaged, many having large breaches. About six million litres of petroleum crude oil
was quickly released; the fire began almost immediately.[41]
The unmanned train derailed in an area near the grade crossing where the rail line crosses
Frontenac Street, the town's main street. The train may have been moving at up to 101 kilometres
per hour (63 mph).[46][77] The rail line in this area is on a curve and has a speed limit for trains of
16 kilometres per hour (10 mph)[77] as it is located at the west end of the Mégantic rail yard. This
location is approximately 600 metres (2,000 ft) northwest of the railway bridge over the
Chaudière River and is also immediately north of the town's central business district.[1]
Just before the derailment, witnesses recalled observing the train passing through the crossing at
an excessive speed with no locomotive lights, "infernal" noise and sparks being emitted from the
wheels.[78] People on the terrace at the Musi-Café—a bar located next to the centre of the
377
explosions—saw the tank cars leave the track and fled as a blanket of oil generated a ball of fire
three times the height of the downtown buildings.[79] Between four and six explosions were
reported initially[80] as tank cars ruptured and crude oil escaped along the train's trajectory. Heat
from the fires was felt as far as 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away.[81] People were jumping from the
third floor of buildings in the central business district to escape the fire. As the blazing oil flowed
over the ground, it entered the town's storm sewer and emerged as huge fires towering from other
storm sewer drains, manholes, and even chimneys and basements of buildings in the area.[79]
Gilles Fluet, a Musi-Café patron who was leaving the site just before the derailment, said the
wheels were smoking lots of white smoke. The runaway train passed 50 metres (160 ft) behind
him moving at highway speed. Travelling with no signals, the train jumped the track, sending a
river of burning oil into the lake.[82] "It was moving at a hellish speed ... no lights, no signals,
nothing at all. There was no warning. It was a black blob that came out of nowhere. I realized
they were oil tankers and they were going to blow up, so I yelled that to my friends and I got out
of there. If we had stayed where we were, we would have been roasted."[83]
The Musi-Café owner says that some employees and patrons felt the tremors of the train and
thought it was an earthquake. They went out and started running. Other patrons and employees
told some survivors that the tremors were an earthquake and that it would be better to stay under
a table. Of those that went out, not all survived. Some were not able to outrun a "tsunami of
fire".[84]
Emergency response
Infrared image taken by NASA's Suomi NPP satellite shows the fire that followed the
derailment: on the left, taken two days before; on the right, taken about two hours after the
explosions.[85]
Around 150 firefighters were deployed to the scene, described as looking like a "war zone".[86]
Some were called in from as far away as the city of Sherbrooke, Quebec,[80] and as many as eight
trucks carrying 30 firefighters were dispatched from Franklin County, Maine, United States
(Chesterville, Eustis, Farmington, New Vineyard, Phillips, Rangeley and Strong).[87] The fire was
contained and prevented from spreading further in the early afternoon.[63]
The local hospital went to Code Orange, anticipating a high number of casualties and requesting
reinforcements from other medical centres, but they received no seriously injured patients. A
Canadian Red Cross volunteer said there were "no wounded. They're all dead".[2] One off-duty
Musi-Café cook, Bernard Théberge, was on the terrace at the time of the derailment and was
treated for second-degree burns to one arm.[88] The hospital was later used to shelter dozens of
378
seniors who had been evacuated.[89] Approximately 1,000 people were evacuated initially after
the derailment, explosions, and fires. Another 1,000 people were evacuated later during the day
because of toxic fumes. Some took refuge in an emergency shelter established by the Red Cross
in a local high school.[90]
According to initial claims made by the railway, the engineer that left the train unattended went
to the explosion zone and uncoupled the last 9 undamaged tank cars that were still on the tracks
at the end of the derailment. After uncoupling the tank cars, he used a rail car mover to pull them
away from the derailment site.[91] This version of events has been disputed by Lac-Mégantic's fire
chief, who indicated that a volunteer firefighter had used a rail car mover borrowed from a local
factory to remove these cars from danger.[92] It was later revealed that two employees of Tafisa
(Serge Morin, Sylvain Grégoire), a firefighter (Benoît Héon), the MMA engineer (Tom Harding)
and a member of the family-owned excavation company Lafontaine and Son (Pascal Lafontaine)
had worked to move 9 tank cars away from the fire. Tafisa, a local particleboard industry that
moves much of its product by rail, has a rail car mover which has the capability to deactivate the
brakes on the cars it tows. Morin, aided by his colleague Grégoire, used the rail car mover to
move the first 5 tank cars away from the fire. When they could not find a level crossing to move
the rail car mover back to the disaster site, they used a loader to remove another 4 tank cars, 2 at
a time. Because the loader lacked equipment to deactivate railcar brakes, Harding told the men to
use the loader to break the air lines on cars to release the air brakes on each of these four
cars.[93][94] Lafontaine's workers hauled gravel to the site, created firebreaks and blocked
manholes as burning oil spread into the town's storm sewer system.[95]
After 20 hours, the centre of the fire was still inaccessible to firefighters[86] and five pools of fuel
were still burning. A special fire-retardant foam was brought from an Ultramar refinery in Lévis,
aiding progress by firefighters on the Saturday night.[96] Five of the unexploded cars were doused
with high-pressure water to prevent further explosions,[81] and two were still burning and at risk
of exploding 36 hours later.[97] The train's event recorder was recovered at around 15:00 the next
day[90] and the fire was finally extinguished in the evening, after burning for nearly two days.[98]
A red zone was declared where evacuees could not return to their homes because of the ongoing
investigation.[99] Townsfolk gathered at the Parc de la Croix Lumineuse, a scenic lookout point
and picnic area in nearby Frontenac, in an attempt to see the full extent of the damage through
binoculars.[100]
Casualties and damage
Forty-two bodies were found and transported to Montreal to be identified.[101] 39 of those were
identified by investigators by late August 2013[102] and the 40th in April 2014.[103] Identification
of additional victims became increasingly difficult after the August 1 end of the on-site search
and family members were asked to provide DNA samples of those missing, as well as dental
records.[104] The bodies of five presumed victims were never found.[105][106] It is possible that
some of the missing people were vaporized by the explosions.[107] As two of the three local
notary offices were destroyed by fire (and only one of the document vaults survived the blaze),
the last will and testament of some victims of the disaster was lost.[108][109]
379
At least 30 buildings were destroyed in the centre of town, including the town's library, a historic
former bank, and other businesses and houses.[86] A hundred and fifteen businesses were
destroyed, displaced, or rendered inaccessible.[110][111] The Musi-Café was destroyed and three of
its employees are among the dead or missing.[112][113][114] While the town intends to build new
infrastructure and commercial space, many of the historic buildings lost are irreplaceable.
“We will rebuild our town. But at the same time, we have to accept that it won’t be the one we
knew. Very old buildings, heritage and architecture all disappeared and at the beginning, no one
realized the magnitude and now we are starting to understand the consequences.”
—Colette Roy-Laroche, mayor of Lac-Mégantic[115]
A number of businesses had to operate from temporary locations outside the downtown,[116] with
reduced facilities[117] until new buildings could be constructed elsewhere, as cleanup efforts will
take a year or more.[118] The municipal water supply for Lac-Mégantic was shut down on the
evening of the explosion because of a leak inside the blast zone,[97] requiring trucks carrying
drinking water, though the leak was repaired overnight and a precautionary boil-water advisory
issued.[97] The industrial park lost access to rail service in both directions as the line remained
severed until December 2013. Claims to local insurers were estimated at $25 million for Intact
Financial, $18 million for Promutuel and $7 million for Desjardins Group.[119]
List of victims
List of victims and their ages[120][hide]
Name
Éliane Parenteau
Frédéric Boutin
Kathy Clusiault
Élodie Turcotte
Yannick Bouchard
Karine Lafontaine
Maxime Dubois
Mélissa Roy
Yves Boulet
Karine Champagne
Gaétan Lafontaine
Joanie Turmel
Roger Paquet
Jo-Annie Lapointe
Guy Bolduc
Andrée-Anne Sévigny
Diane Bizier
David Lacroix-Beaudoin
Age
93
19
24
18
36
35
27
29
51
36
33
29
61
20
43
26
46
27
380
Name
Stéphane Bolduc
Marianne Poulin
Geneviève Breton
Mathieu Pelletier
Sylvie Charron
Henriette Latulippe
David Martin
Jean-Pierre Roy
Jean-Guy Veilleux
Lucie Vadnais
Michel Junior Guertin
Natachat Gaudreau
Kevin Roy
Éric Pépin-Lajeunesse
Talitha Coumi Bégnoche
Stéphane Lapierre
Marie-Noëlle Faucher
Martin Rodrigue
Réal Custeau
Marie-Sémie Alliance
Alyssa Charest Bégnoche
Bianka Charest Bégnoche
Age
37
23
28
29
50
61
36
56
32
49
33
41
29
28
30
45
36
48
57
22
4
9
Aftermath
The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council ordered all provincial flags to be flown at half mast on
public buildings for 7 days following the derailment.[121]
All but 800 of the evacuated residents were allowed to return to their homes in the afternoon of
the third day;[122] all but 200 were able to return by the sixth day.[123] At least twenty had no
381
home to which to return.[124] Some homes had reportedly been broken into during their
vacancies,[125][126] although police deny that homes were looted.[127]
Rail World's president and CEO Edward Burkhardt visited the town on July 10, 2013, and was
heckled by residents. After the accident, the railway's safety record was called into question: over
the previous decade the firm recorded a higher accident rate than the rest of the U.S. rail fleet,
according to data from the Federal Railroad Administration. In the previous year, the railroad had
36.1 accidents per million miles travelled, in comparison to a national average of 14.6
accidents.[128][129][nb 1] Burkhardt's historical involvement with a 1996 derailment on the
Wisconsin Central in which hazardous materials burned for over two weeks also drew renewed
scrutiny.[130] While the actual cause of the disaster was still under provincial (Sûreté du Québec)
and federal (Transportation Safety Board) investigation, Burkhardt announced the railway had
suspended the engineer for allegedly improperly setting the handbrakes on the rail cars.[131] The
engineer was made unavailable at the suggestion of his lawyer[132] and MMA instructed its
employees not to answer questions from police without first consulting the company's
lawyers.[133] A former colleague established an Albany-based legal defence fund for the
engineer.[134][135] The Sûreté du Québec raided MMA offices in Farnham on July 25 as part of a
criminal investigation into the Lac-Mégantic fatalities;[136] the Transportation Safety Board
conducted its own search backed by RCMP on August 1.[137]
Raymond Lafontaine, a local contractor who lost a son, two daughters-in-law and an
employee,[138] has raised concerns about the poor condition of MMA-owned track and about the
increasing quantity of dangerous goods being transported through downtown areas by rail, not
only in Lac-Mégantic but in cities such as Sherbrooke.[139] He has asked the tracks be repaired
and rerouted to bypass the town's core.[140]
Lac-Mégantic mayor Colette Roy-Laroche has sought assistance from federal and provincial
governments to move the trains away from the downtown,[141] a proposal opposed by the railway
owing to cost,[142] and asked tourists not to abandon the region.[143] MMA announced that it
intends to make future crew changes in Sherbrooke so that trains are no longer left unattended;
that city's mayor Bernard Sévigny has expressed concern that this merely shifts the hazard into
the centre of Quebec's sixth-largest city.[144]
Changes to operations and procedures
The two major Class I Canadian railways, Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National
Railway, have indicated that they will not be leaving unattended locomotives unlocked outside a
terminal or yard; CPR tank car trains containing regulated commodities will no longer be left
unattended on a main line.[145]
On August 6, 2013, Burkhardt stated that MMA has no further plans to carry oil by rail.[146] On
August 7, 2013, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in both the Quebec Superior Court
in Montreal (under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act)[147] and the United States
Bankruptcy Court in Bangor, Maine[148] (under Chapter 11).[149]
382
On August 13, 2013, the Canadian Transportation Agency suspended the railway's Certificate of
Fitness[150] effective August 20 because of its failure to obtain adequate insurance coverage,[151]
shutting down the line.[152][153] It later extended this deadline to conditionally allow operation
until October 18.[154][155] While the amount of liability insurance is not listed on the federal
Certificate of Fitness for reasons unknown, MMA's bankruptcy petition disclosed an insurance
policy valued at $25 million[156] and an estimated cleanup cost, which excludes damages in tort,
of $200 million.[156]
MMA's Certificate of Fitness was last modified in 2005, to reflect the use of the line by Orford
Express (an independently owned passenger service between Magog and Sherbrooke).[157] It is
unclear whether notice was given of the oil-by-rail shipments which began in 2012 despite a
requirement to "notify the Agency in writing without delay if ... the ... operation has changed so
that the liability insurance coverage may no longer be adequate."[157]
In Maine, state transportation authorities have contacted all rival freight operators in-state to
establish a contingency plan; if MMA ceases operation, US federal law requires a trustee keep
the line operating until a buyer is found because of the MMA's status as a monopoly in many
communities.[158] The US has no requirement that privately owned railways carry liability
insurance.[159]
On August 22, 2013, the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered CPR to reinstate delivery to
MMA,[160] a move CPR (as one of multiple firms ordered by Quebec's government to pay for the
costly cleanup of oil spilled by MMA at Lac-Mégantic)[161] considers an unacceptable safety
risk.[citation needed]
Canadian Pacific chief executive officer Hunter Harrison stated that, "While we disagree with
this order, we have taken immediate steps to comply". The CTA, as federal regulator, has
satisfied itself that MMA is fit to operate and has adequate insurance to do so. We will review
our legal options.”[162]
The CTA also found that "the balance of inconvenience clearly favours MMA as the refusal to
grant the interim order would result in the virtual cessation of MMA's operations."[163] The CTA
also held that issues regarding public safety were none of its concern.[163]
In separate developments also occurring on August 22, 2013, the New Brunswick and Maine
Railway company, a division of the J. D. Irving conglomerate, indicated its interest to acquire the
troubled MMA railway,[160] and the Canadian Transportation Agency indicated it would review
insurance coverage of federally chartered railways at some point "in the fall".[164] The same day,
the Quebec government hired Paul Hastings, a Quebec bankruptcy specialist firm with standing
in New York State, to represent it in American proceedings.[163]
Federal Railroad Administration administrator Joseph C. Szabo wrote to the MMA the following
day, stating that "I was shocked to see that you changed your operating procedures to use twoperson crews on trains in Canada, but not in the United States. Because the risk associated with
this accident also exists in the United States, it is my expectation that the same safety procedures
will apply to your operations."[165]
383
As of December 18, 2013, the MMA was again allowed to operate between Sherbrooke and LacMégantic, including going through Lac-Mégantic itself, as before the derailment. However,
operations within Lac-Mégantic were subject to numerous restrictions, such as a prohibition on
transport of dangerous cargo; a train's manifest being released no less than four hours ahead; no
parking on tracks within 4 km (2 mi) of the town centre; a conductor and engineer must be on
board; and a train's speed must not exceed 16 km/h (10 mph). On that date, a test train carrying
particle board from the local Tafisa factory to Sherbrooke rolled through the town centre. There
were plans to reroute the tracks outside the town by changing the track's route between Nantes
and Frontenac, but no time table has been set.[166] The railway's assets were sold in a January 21,
2014 Portland bankruptcy auction to Railroad Acquisition Holdings, a subsidiary of Fortress
Investment Group.[167] as Central Maine and Quebec Railway (reporting mark CMQR).[168]
Response
On July 8, Canada's monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, issued a message expressing her and Prince
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh's, "profound sadness [over the] tragic events that have befallen the
town of Lac-Mégantic" and hope "that in time it will be possible to rebuild both the property and
the lives of those who have been affected."[169] The Queen's federal representative, Governor
General David Johnston, released a similar message on the same day,[170] as did her provincial
representative, Lieutenant Governor Pierre Duchesne, on July 6,[171] and the Queen's son, Prince
Charles, and his wife on July 9.[172] On July 6, Quebec Premier Pauline Marois surveyed the
scene, expressing profound sadness in response to the devastation in Lac-Mégantic,[173] The
following day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered his prayers and condolences to those
affected.[174]
In a letter to Harper, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, expressed condolences
for the "devastating loss of life" and offered American help, if needed.[175][176] French President
François Hollande issued a statement expressing France's solidarity with victims and
authorities.[177] Pope Francis sent a special apostolic blessing from the Vatican to those touched
by the tragedy, along with his sympathy to victims, their families, and emergency workers.[178]
The Maine Legislature passed a resolution on July 10 in support of the people of LacMégantic;[179] speaking in French, House majority leader Seth Berry said "Aujourd'hui, nous
sommes tous des citoyens de Lac-Mégantic"[180] ("Today, we are all citizens of Lac-Mégantic").
Reaction from environmentalists
Keith Stewart, Climate and Energy Campaign Coordinator with Greenpeace Canada, criticized
Canada's energy policy within hours of the tragedy, saying that "whether it's pipelines or rail, we
have a safety problem in this country. This is more evidence that the federal government
continues to put oil profits ahead of public safety."[181]
Technical investigation
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which is prevented statutorily from issuing
judgements or finding blame, has started an investigation into the accident under reference
384
R13D0054,[182] deploying a team of 20 experts to the site to gather evidence and interview
officials and witnesses. While the investigation remains underway, the Transportation Safety
Board has asked Transport Canada review the Canadian Rail Operating Rules and special
instructions by railways that cover securing equipment. They also advised that trains carrying
dangerous goods should not be left unattended on a main track.[183]
On July 8, Transport Canada investigated a second MMA train reported by police as unattended
since July 5 on the Vachon Station siding near Frontenac. That train had been parked on a slope
with only five handbrakes set, and did not comply with federal regulations. At least nine brakes
should have be used to secure the train on level track, with additional handbrakes applied when
on an incline.[184] A local resident had posted online video of an unattended locomotive with a
cabin door ajar and an engine left running.[185]
On July 19, Transportation Safety Board of Canada chief investigator Donald Ross said “Not
enough brakes were applied to the train that derailed. A sufficient number of brakes needed to be
applied and the quality of brakes needs to be examined.”[186]
TSB investigators are looking into the air brake system which is normally charged to 90 PSI
(621 kPa) and, when the engineer reduces the air pressure to 65 pounds per square inch
(448 kPa), applies the brakes. Investigators are trying to determine how the air brakes were
released by examining the theory that a relatively small change in air pressure could have
produced a “pressure wave” to trigger a quick release of the brakes.[24] However, Wally
Kirkpatrick, manager of rules and operations at RTC Rail Solutions, said the air brakes could
have leaked off over time once the engine was shut down.[187]
Because crude oil generally does not readily ignite, TSB investigators are looking into the
composition of the train's cargo. Theories being investigated are:[188]

The oil may have contained additives to speed up the transfer of the syrupy oil. This is
common when shipping via pipelines but rare for shipping by rail.[188]

There may have been chemical contaminants in the tank cars from a previous shipment.
However, the MMA had a detailed bill of lading from a U.S. oil services company stating
there were no chemicals in the crude.[188]

The oil may have been contaminated with chemicals used in the fracking process.[189]

Bakken oil can contain high levels of hydrogen sulphide gas; hydrogen sulphide is
flammable, corrosive, poisonous, and explosive.[188][190] Pipeline operators Tesoro and
Enbridge no longer accept crude with more than five parts per million H2S, citing safety
concerns.[189]

A local propane tank near the derailment might have exploded when struck by a rail
car.[188]

High temperatures in Quebec at the time of the derailment may have made the oil cargo
more flammable.[188]
385
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S, sour gas), a gas which is toxic to humans and flammable, has been
detected in Bakken crude by Enbridge and likely was part of the reason for the explosive nature
of this event.[191][192]
On July 19, 2013, the TSB issued an urgent safety advisory requesting that Transport Canada
consider reviewing all railway operating procedures to ensure that trains carrying Dangerous
goods are not left unattended on the main track.[60]
Also on July 19, the TSB issued another urgent safety advisory requesting that Transport Canada
review Rule 112 of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) and all related railway special
instructions to ensure that equipment and trains left unattended are properly secured in order to
prevent unintended movements. The TSB noted that most railway special instructions specify the
minimum number of hand brakes needed in general operating conditions but not always for
specific conditions. It is often left up to the operating employee to determine the number of hand
brakes to apply. The employee must take into consideration the slope or grade of the track and
the approximate tonnage of the equipment to be secured at a specific location. The TSB also
noted that the effectiveness of the hand brake system varied from car to car depending on the
design, condition and maintenance, and also from one operator to another due to differences in
physical capability and personal technique. The TSB also stated that it is inadequate for railway
operators to depend on the push–pull test to verify whether the hand brakes can hold the cars.[193]
On August 1, the TSB said it has taken samples of the oil for analysis.[194] Both Canadian[195] and
US investigators[196] have found the Bakken crude was not identified correctly in shipping
documents,[197] and the incorrect classification led to its volatility being underestimated.[198] The
following month, the TSB identified a defective piston in the head engine as the cause of the
original fire in Nantes.[199]
Transport Canada issued notices of non-compliance after inspection of six track segments found
fair to substandard rail conditions which legally must be fixed, including a concentration of
defective ties on a section near a propane storage facility.[200] On September 12, following a
failed inspection, Transport Canada shut down one segment of the MMA line until hazards could
be fixed.[200][201][202] Subsequent inspections led to an October 11 embargo on the line between
Lennoxville and Lac-Mégantic.[203]
On August 19, 2014, the TSB issued its report documenting findings and recommendations.
TSB Findings
In its August 2014 report, the TSB identified 18 distinct causes and contributing factors, many of
them influencing one another:[41][42][43]

Factors related to the locomotive (5017), the lead locomotive on the derailed train:
o
Mechanical problems not remedied: An engineer reported trouble with the
locomotive 5017’s engine on a separate trip two days before the crash in LacMégantic. The locomotive remained in service despite that concern.[42]
386

o
Non-standard engine repair failure: A quick and cheap repair using inappropriate
materials allowed oil to accumulate in the turbocharger and exhaust manifold,
resulting in a fire.[42]
o
Locomotive engine fire: In order to put out the fire, the Nantes fire department
shut down the locomotive thus inadvertently disabling the air brakes.
o
Safety device not wired to initiate braking: The “reset safety control” system was
not wired to set the entire train’s brakes in the event of an engine failure.[42]
Factor related to the tank cars:
o


Factors related to Transport Canada's role in providing oversight of railway operations:
o
Inadequate oversight of operational changes: Transport Canada did not provide
adequate regulatory oversight to ensure the associated risks were addressed when
the MMA made significant operational changes.[43]
o
Limited follow-up on safety deficiencies: Transport Canada did not follow up to
ensure that recurring safety deficiencies were dealt with.[42]
o
Inefficient program to audit safety management systems (SMS): Audits were
limited in frequency and scope and had no followup procedure.
Factor related to the derailment:
o


Breached tank cars and highly volatile crude oil: The tank cars were prone to
puncture and the Bakken oil was highly volatile.
Excessive train speed for track: At the point of derailment, the train was travelling
at 105 km/h, more than triple the typical speed for that location.[42]
Factors related to train securement:
o
Independent air brakes leaked off: With all the locomotives shut down, the air
compressor no longer supplied air to the air brake system. As air leaked from the
brake system, the main air reservoirs were slowly depleted, gradually reducing the
effectiveness of the locomotive air brakes.
o
Improper handbrake test: The engineer erroneously did the brake test with the
locomotive air brakes left on. This gave the false impression that the hand brakes
alone would hold the train.
o
Insufficient hand brakes: The engineer set 7 hand brakes. The TSB said that a
minimum of 17 were technically required and perhaps as many as 26.
Factors related to MMA practices:
387
o
Train left unattended on hill: The train was parked unattended on the main line, on
a descending grade, and the securement of the train was reliant on a locomotive
that was in deteriorating operating condition.[43]
o
No additional safety defences: No additional physical safety defences (such as a
derail) were in place to prevent the uncontrolled movement of the train.[43]
o
Ineffective training and oversight on train securement: The MMA did not provide
effective training or oversight to ensure that crews understood and complied with
rules governing train securement.[43]
o
Weak safety culture: The MMA was reactive rather than proactive when it came to
safety. The MMA had weak safety training. There were also significant gaps
between the company's operating instructions and how work was done day to day.
o
Safety management system (SMS) not fully implemented: Although MMA had
developed a safety management system in 2002, the company did not begin to
implement it until 2010. By 2013, the SMS was still not functioning effectively.
o
Not effectively managing risks: When making significant operational changes, the
MMA did not thoroughly identify and manage the risks to ensure safe
operations.[43]
Single person train operation, initially investigated as a 19th factor in the derailment, was omitted
from the final report.[204] A second operator could have provided a second opinion about the
thick smoke from the defective engine or verified the number of brakes to be set to hold the train
on an incline.
The TSB report also contains 16 findings as to risk even though these safety risks did not lead
directly to the accident. Some of the risks that the TSB recommends to be addressed are:

the continuing risk of leaving trains unattended.

the risk of implementing single-person train operations.

the risk of not systematically testing petroleum crude oil.

the risk of not planning and analysing routes on which dangerous goods are carried.

the risk of not having emergency response assistance plans in place.

the risk of Transport Canada not ensuring that safety management systems work
effectively.
TSB Recommendations
In its August 2014 report, the TSB documented the following recommendations:[41]
388

Transport Canada must take a more hands-on role when it comes to railways' safety
management systems—making sure not just that they exist, but that they are working and
that they are effective. (New recommendation.) Railways draw up Safety Management
Systems and file them with Transport Canada for approval. The TSB wants Transport
Canada to audit Safety Management Systems frequently and in depth to ensure they are
being implemented as designed.[205]

Canadian railways must put in place additional physical defences to prevent runaways.
(New recommendation.) The TSB wants Transport Canada to require trains to use wheel
chocks for parked trains, or install more modern and better braking technology to hold
parked trains in place.[205]

Emergency response assistance plans must be created when large volumes of liquid
hydrocarbons, like oil, are shipped. (New recommendation.) The TSB wants Emergency
Response Assistance Plans in place to handle accidents with hazardous materials
including crude oil which was previously not included. This is to ensure that the
appropriate emergency equipment is available along the route.[205]

Railway companies should conduct strategic route-planning and enhance train operations
for all trains carrying dangerous goods. (Recommendation made in January, 2014.) The
TSB wants railways to choose their routes carefully when shipping dangerous goods to
avoid populated areas. Railways are resisting this recommendation because of cost of
relocating routes away from population centres.[205]

Enhanced protection standards must be put in place for Class 111 tank cars.
(Recommendation made in June, 2014.) The TSB wants to retire all the old DOT-111 tank
cars. A problem with this recommendation is that the oil that exploded at Lac-Megantic
was so volatile that it would likely tear through any DOT-111 railcar, old or new.[205]
Omissions in the TSB report
The TSB did not address the problem of volatile oil in its report into the disaster. The oil that
exploded was extremely light having properties similar to gasoline. The oil was prone to
gasification before and during transit, and its vapours are believed to have been the reason for the
large explosions at Lac-Mégantic.[205]
Criminal investigation
The provincial police organisation, Sûreté du Québec (SQ), has led the recovery of the deceased
in Lac-Megantic, alongside the Bureau du Coroner du Quebec.[206]
The SQ investigated the MMA railway offices in Farnham, Quebec, on July, 25 with a warrant
and planned to seize evidence about the fatal event.[207] It is unknown[when?] whether the SQ has
plans to broaden the scope of their investigation to include, for example, the broker at World
Fuel Services who chose to employ deficient DOT-111 tank cars.[208]
389
On May 12, 2014, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway was charged with 47 counts of
criminal negligence; engineer Thomas Harding, manager of train operations Jean DeMaître and
rail traffic controller Richard Labrie were arrested and appeared in Lac-Mégantic's court.[209][210]
Of the 79 railcars only 7 brakes had been applied, where MMA guidelines indicate 9 as a
minimum and experts advise 15 brakes should have been used for the slope the train was on. No
manual brakes had been applied on 72 of the cars.[211]
The United Steelworkers union in Quebec, which represents the engineer and controller, has
denounced the failure to lay charges against CEO Ed Burkhardt,[212] and is raising funds for the
legal defence of unionised workers whom it identifies as scapegoats.[213]
The defective locomotive MMA 5017, a key piece of evidence in the criminal enquiry,
inexplicably turned up at the former MMA Derby Yard in Milo, Maine, as part of a collection of
equipment destined to an August 2014 auction on behalf of the Bangor Savings Bank, a
creditor.[214] The engine was removed from the auction in response to Surêté du Québec
objections.
Environmental impact
This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly
available information. (October 2014)
The city prohibited all access to the downtown (including Frontenac, Thibodeau, Durand Streets
and the boulevard des Vétérans) until June 2014 to permit a massive decontamination
effort.[215][dated info] The soil decontamination is (as of January 2014) now expected to take until
December 2014, although the water table appears uncontaminated.[216] Some buildings that are
still standing, such as the local post office in Lac-Mégantic, are a total loss due to oil
contamination.[217] It may take up to five years to decontaminate some sites where homes
formerly stood, forcing householders to rebuild elsewhere.[218]
Contamination of land
The disaster site was so heavily contaminated with benzene that firefighters and investigators in
the first month worked in fifteen-minute shifts due to heat and toxic conditions.[219] The
waterfront at Veteran's Park and the town marina were contaminated by hydrocarbons, which
were contained by a series of booms. This rendered vessels and docks inaccessible until they can
be removed from the water and decontaminated,[220] a process which was to take until late
August 2013 to complete.[221]
A hundred residents were not expected to return home until mid-2014[dated info] as the ground
beneath their still-standing houses is contaminated with oil;[222] some homes in the mostcontaminated areas might never be habitable.[223]
Because the cleanup of the derailment area could take 5 years, about 115 businesses are planning
to relocate. 40 buildings have already been destroyed but another 160 may need to be
expropriated for demolition because they sit on several metres of contaminated soil which must
be removed and replaced with clean fill. Subsequent reconstruction on the site may initially be
390
impractical as new buildings would require deeper foundations until the new fill settles. The
town is considering making a memorial park in the damaged area[224] and relocating displaced
businesses to a proposed Papineau Street extension to cross the Chaudière River to Lévis
Street.[225] The new road is to be constructed in October 2013[dated info] using federal and
provincial infrastructure funding, although insurance coverage for local companies to abandon
contaminated sites remains uncertain. For 125 businesses, the move is expected to be
permanent.[226]
Workers at the downtown site have expressed concern that cleanup efforts are being delayed by
management, leaving workers often idle on-site and allowing work to proceed only at a snail's
pace.[227] The downtown was most affected; over thirty buildings destroyed by the disaster itself,
with thirty-six of the thirty-nine remaining buildings slated for demolition due to contamination
of the underlying soil. In December 2014, local residents were given one last chance to tour what
remained of the downtown before demolition.[9]
Contamination of waterways
The Chaudière River was contaminated by an estimated 100,000 litres (22,000 imp gal;
26,000 US gal) of oil. The spill travelled down the river and reached the town of Saint-Georges
80 kilometres (50 mi) to the northeast, forcing local authorities to draw water from a nearby lake
and install floating barriers to prevent contamination. Residents were asked to limit their water
consumption as the lake was not able to supply the daily needs of the town.[228] Swimming and
fishing were prohibited in the Chaudière River, as was the use of scarce municipal water to fill
swimming pools or water flower beds.[229] Restrictions on drawing potable water from the river
remained in effect two months later.[230] A temporary system of aboveground pipes feeding water
to Lévis from the Beaurivage River is expected to cost $2 million, not including any measures to
protect the line against freezing in winter.[231]
Environmentalists have reported heavy contamination from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
and believe arsenic levels to be well above legal limits.[232]
Cleanup and environmental costs
MMA contractors responsible for removing oil and damaged rail cars from downtown LacMégantic stopped work on July 17 as the railway had not paid them.[233] Work soon resumed
under municipal (and later provincial) funding.[234] As of July 30 the municipality was
demanding MMA reimburse $7.6 million in cleanup costs.[235] Rail World CEO Ed Burkhardt
indicated "we’re unable to fund that out of our own cash, so we’re waiting for the insurance
company to come forward".[236]
Provincial environment minister Yves-François Blanchet issued a July 29 order under the Quality
of the Environment Act [237] requiring MMA, Western Petroleum Company and its parent World
Fuel Services pay the full cost of clean-up and damage assessment.[238] Canadian Pacific Railway
was added on August 14[239] after World Fuel Services, as shipper of the crude oil, claimed its
only contractual relationship is to the CPR with MMA (as CP's subcontractor)[240] exercising sole
control of the site.[241] The claim that MMA was contracted by CP (and not WFS) has since been
391
drawn into question.[242] Blanchet stated “I will leave it up to lawyers, but let’s be clear: under the
law on environmental quality, the minister does not ask for, or suggest, compensation ... he
orders it."[243] CP intends to appeal the order.[243][244][245][246][247]
Political impact
Following the accident, the MMA temporarily ceased operations on its lines between LacMégantic and Jackman, Maine,[158] effectively severing rail transport on its lines between Maine
and Quebec, though rail traffic continued outside the affected area. In Quebec, MMA continued
operation from Farnham with a skeleton staff after the derailment, having laid off 19 of its 75
workers without notice on July 19[248] and an additional five on July 30;[249] these workers have
not received severance and vacation pay owed.[250] In Maine, 64 MMA employees were laid off
as a result of the derailment.[146]
Municipal reaction
Local governments in various communities across Canada have expressed concern not only that
railways are exempted from all local regulations (as they are under federal jurisdiction) but that
information on the content of dangerous goods shipments is being deliberately, systematically
withheld from municipal leaders whose duties include disaster planning and 9-1-1 emergency
response.[251][252][253]
On August 23, 2013, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities rail safety working group urged
the Federal government to act swiftly on rail safety. The FCM working group had three
recommendations:[254]

Help equip and support municipal first responders, and keep them informed of the type of
dangerous goods being transported by rail through their communities in order to help plan
for emergencies.

Ensure federal and industry policies and regulations address municipalities' rail safety
concerns and include those concerns in risk assessment and policy development on rail
safety.

Solidify the regulation of third-party liability insurance for rail companies so the costs of
rail disasters are not borne by local taxpayers.
In Montmagny, a community on the CN line through Lévis, mayor Jean-Guy Desrosiers has
expressed concern about the 60-mile-per-hour (97 km/h) dangerous materials trains which have
appeared increasingly frequently now that the former CP line through Lac-Mégantic is
inoperable; neither the city nor police and fire responders are informed of the content of these
shipments, leaving questions as to the readiness of the municipality to respond to further
derailments.[255]
Magog mayor Vicky May Hamm made an Access to Information Act enquiry for track inspection
data, train scheduling information and products transported. The federal response acknowledged
392
that inspections found three problematic track sections, but provided no further information.[256]
Sherbrooke has made similar demands. While US authorities have made Maine track inspection
data available quickly, the Canadian government is expected to take eight months to a year to
comply with the Access to Information Act enquiries.[257]
According to the Brandon Sun, the Brandon Police Service and Brandon Fire Department
indicate they are not provided dangerous goods lists by rail companies.[258] Cote St Luc, Quebec
mayor Anthony Housefather expressed concern in a recent council meeting about the lack of
data: “I’m not the federal government, I didn’t determine if the railways have an obligation to
provide [the information] to the municipalities or anyone else,” the mayor added. “The federal
government should be doing that. I had one opportunity to get it for our city to work on our
emergency measures plan and make sure that we’re prepared, and I prefer to have the information
than not have it.... Until such time as the federal government adopts more stringent requirements
on the railways, anything we receive as information as a city comes from the sufferance of the
railway, meaning we need to have a good relationship with the railway to get anything because
they have no legal obligation under federal law to provide it to us,”[259]
Farnham's town council passed a resolution asking that the operation of a rail line that cuts the
town in two be suspended until Transport Canada conducts a full inspection of the rails; Farnham
mayor Josef Hüsler has also requested subsidies to move the rail yard outside the town and
replace a level crossing at Quebec Route 104 with an overpass.[260]
Quebec City mayor Régis Labeaume has offered that city's continued support for the
reconstruction effort (the city already has emergency workers on-site)[261] and called for the
immediate construction of 1–2 km of new track to reconnect Lac-Mégantic's industrial park to
the rails, bypassing the damaged downtown. He praised local mayor Colette Roy-Laroche
unequivocally while denouncing Rail World CEO Burkhardt as a "corporate bum" whose modus
operandi of taking large dividends in profit while leaving company coffers nearly empty would
allow the railway to declare bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers to foot the huge cost of rebuilding
Lac-Mégantic.[262][263] Quebec City has also sent an expert from its museum of civilisation to
identify artefacts in the wreckage which should be preserved for inclusion in a future monument,
memorial park or exhibit.[264]
Vaudreuil-Dorion mayor Guy Pilon has asked that municipalities be permitted to limit the speed
of trains in populated areas, as homes and schools built fifty years ago near rail lines then
carrying wood, grain and cereals are now endangered by high-speed hazardous goods trains.[265]
Dourdan, France mayor Olivier Leglois has offered condolences to the mayor of LacMégantic[266] at the request of Le Chêne et l'Érable, a Dourdan local organisation supporting the
sister city link between the two towns.[267] While Dourdan has provided no immediate aid, its
local government intends to support secondary efforts such as reconstruction of the town's
library,[266] which suffered nearly two and a half million dollars in damage and is a complete
loss.[268] While the local archives cannot be replaced,[269] various universities and local groups in
Quebec have collected books for a new Bibliothèque Mégantic.[270]
Sister city Farmington, Maine sent firefighters to fight the blaze,[271] raised over $6000 in local
donations in the first few days after the derailment and had local officials meet with their
393
Méganticois counterparts to offer aid and support.[272] Both the municipality[273] and the
Farmington library[274] have contacted their direct counterparts in other Maine municipalities to
enlist their aid.
Provincial reaction
During a July 11 visit Premier Marois criticized the rail company's response, while announcing a
$60-million fund for survivor assistance and rebuilding.[275] Ten days later, the federal
government had yet to commit to any specific aid for the stricken community, despite requests
from the municipality for help to rebuild damaged infrastructure and reroute the rails outside the
stricken downtown.[276]
During an annual premiers' conference, the Council of the Federation, provincial leaders called
for stricter requirements for liability insurance for rail carriers, real-time information on content
and location of dangerous goods trains for officials at all levels of government and a federally
supported national emergency response program.[277][278]
The premiers of Quebec and all four Atlantic provinces, as well as all six New England
governors, have called for stricter federal regulation of dangerous goods by rail in both
nations.[279]
A 2001 Quebec law (Article 8 of the Loi sur la sécurité civile) for which the corresponding
regulations were never enacted was cited on 19 August 2013 by Vision Montréal, a municipal
political party. Under that law, a company conducting activities or holding materials which could
cause a major disaster would be required to disclose these risks to municipalities, indicating the
potential damage and any contingency plans.[280]
Maine and United States
In Maine, where oil-by-rail has attracted environmental protests,[281] the state legislature voted
91-52 for a study on transportation of crude oil through the state. The proposed study was vetoed
by the state's governor[282] and the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) has no
plans to review movements of crude oil through Maine.[283] Maine governor Paul Lepage has
advocated federal review of all procedures affecting rail safety on both sides of the border.[284]
Maine's US representatives Michaud and Pingree proposed “The Safe Freight Act,” a federal bill
requiring two-person crews on freight trains, and are demanding the older DOT-111 design be
replaced by sturdier cars for dangerous goods shipments.[285][286]
The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration has launched a full re-inspection of the 275 miles
(443 km) of the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway's track in Maine.[287] A committee of local
mayors representing the Quebec municipalities along the line (Sutton, Magog, Sherbrooke,
Farnham, Lac-Mégantic, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Cowansville) have called for a similar
investigation by the government of Canada.[288] The FRA also established an "Emergency Order
establishing additional requirements for attendance and securement of certain freight trains and
394
vehicles on mainline track or mainline siding outside of a yard or terminal" on August 2,
2013.[289]
The Maine Department of Transportation is working to establish contingency plans for local
industry which uses MMA's rail lines. The state has contacted every Maine freight rail operator,
seeking a trustee who could keep the line running should MMA cease operations.[290][291]
Canadian federal impact
On July 7, PM Stephen Harper described the area as a "war zone" and claimed the federal
Cabinet would have the proper authorities "conduct a very complete investigation and act on the
recommendations".[292][293]
The disaster has drawn criticisms of federal deregulation of the rail industry in Canada. The
Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents inspectors at Transport Canada, has
objected to a pattern of fewer inspections, deferred maintenance of rail lines already in poor
condition and an increasing number of cars on each train, going as far as to label the Government
of Canada as "complicit" in the disaster.[294] Leaders of two federal opposition parties, the New
Democratic Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois, have called for the Parliament of Canada to
examine rail safety in Canada with possible implementation of stricter regulation.[295][296] The
Conservative Party of Canada has opposed a critical review of Transport Canada's oversight of
the railways,[297] Millions of dollars budgeted to Transport Canada for rail safety in fiscal years
2011–12 and 2012–13 remain unspent.[298]
In Canada, federal regulation requires rail carriers carry adequate third-party liability insurance
but does not legislate a specific dollar minimum in coverage.[299] The amount of coverage is not
disclosed to the public nor to municipalities along the line. MMA was insured for $25 million in
liability;[300] a second policy exists but only covers damage to MMA equipment and rolling
stock.[301]
The federal government had been subject to intense lobbying by the Railway Association of
Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway prior to the disaster, with railway association lobbyists
meeting with multiple federal officials “to inform about the movement of dangerous goods,
including voluntary and regulatory requirements, volumes, customers and safety measures to
assure them that current regulations for dangerous goods transportation are sufficient.”[302] A
similar situation exists in the US, with nearly $47 million/year in lobbying to delay safety
measures such as positive train control.[303]
The Environmental Petitions[304] process of the federal Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development is one avenue for citizen redress, whereby the Minister is required to
answer within 120 days.[304]
In December 2011, the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development, a branch
of the Auditor General of Canada, recommended[305] to address weaknesses in the oversight of
the transportation of dangerous goods. Deficiencies identified by the AGC in 2011 included:[305]

There is a lack of follow-up by Transport Canada on identified deficiencies
395

Transport Canada does not know the extent to which organizations transporting
dangerous goods are complying with regulations

Transport Canada does not conduct an adequate, timely review when approving
emergency response assistance plans

Management has not acted on long-standing concerns regarding inspection and
emergency plan review practices
At the time of the release of the AGC report, Transport Canada agreed to review its procedures
and enhance all of its practices by April 2013.[306]
Marie France Dagenais, Director-General of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods division of
Transport Canada,[307] prioritizes her job as follows: "naturally we do it in cooperation with the
industry and also representatives with the U.S. government because we want uniform standards
in Canada and the United States” and thus explains the five-year delay to develop standards in
her department.[308] Meanwhile, some representatives with the U.S. government were
participating in drug use and sexual activity with employees from the very energy firms they
were to be regulating.[309]
However, it would appear that many of the issues raised by the audit are not new. “An internal
audit identified these same concerns over five years ago. The department has yet to correct some
of the key weaknesses in its regulatory oversight practices,” stated former environment
commissioner Scott Vaughan in July 2013.[308]
On August 22, 2013, a committee of the Senate of Canada reported its findings.[310] The Energy,
Environment and Natural Resources (ENEV) committee[311] decided in November 2012 to report
on energy safety issues and had input from more than 50 individuals or groups as it crossed
Canada. The Chair of the committee, Sen. Richard Neufeld, said that the entire committee was
supportive of minimum insurance coverage: “If they can’t afford their liability coverage, maybe
they shouldn’t be in the business.”[312] The committee noted that "pipeline companies are subject
to a minimum of $1 billion available in bonds, lines of credit, third-party guarantees and liability
insurance.",[312] and that in 2012 alone there were 118 railway accidents involving dangerous
goods.[312] The 13 recommendations of the committee include:[313]

The federal government should launch an arm's-length review of the railway regulatory
framework, standards and industry practices.

Transport Canada should apply appropriate minimum liability coverage thresholds to
ensure rail companies have the financial capacity to cover damages caused by a major
incident.

The National Energy Board and Transport Canada should create a web portal that
includes interactive maps indicating detailed information on spills and incidents for
pipelines, tankers and railcars. It should include the types of product released and the
cause of the incident.
396
Stricter safety requirements, including two-person crews and additional requirements for hand
brakes, were announced in October 2014.[314] In February 2015, the federal Minister of Transport
announced a two-year phase-in of stricter liability for rail carriers, in which a Class I railway
handling hazardous material could be required to carry a billion dollars in liability insurance.[315]
Litigation
In Canada, a class action lawsuit has been filed by Daniel Larochelle (a Lac-Mégantic attorney
whose office was destroyed by the derailment and fire) and a group of Canadian and US law
firms on behalf of Musi-Café proprietor Yannick Gagné and one of the widowers from the
disaster, Guy Ouellet.[316] Afterwards, two more petitioners were added to the suit, Serges
Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent.[317] The suit names a long list of rail and oil companies,
including Western Petroleum Company and Irving Oil:[318][319]

MMA

Western Petroleum Company (lessee)

Irving Oil

Canadian Pacific Railway

Union Tank Car Company

Trinity Industries

GE Capital Rail Services (lessors)
It alleges Canadian Pacific Railway "entrusted the transport of highly explosive shale liquids to a
carrier with one of the poorest safety records in the industry which was operating on poorly
maintained 'excepted track' that did not permit the transport of flammable or dangerous goods"
and claims CP knew that MMA was insolvent and underinsured. It also targets Union Tank Car
Company, Trinity Industries and GE Capital Rail Services, claiming "non-reinforced older model
DOT-111 tankers were wholly unsuitable for the transport of these highly explosive shale
liquids".[320] The lawsuit states that the transportation of flammable and dangerous goods is
limited to 10 km/hour.[319] Canadian courts can award plaintiffs a maximum of $326,000 as
compensation for non-economic damages like emotional distress.[321]
In the US, multiple individual lawsuits have been filed in Rail World's home jurisdiction of Cook
County, Illinois on behalf of various groups of next of kin.[322] One such lawsuit filed in Cook
County by Lac-Mégantic lawyer Gloriane Blais with two US lawyers (Edward Jazlowiecki in
Connecticut and Mitchell Toups in Texas) lists eleven defendants, mostly North Dakota oil
companies directly responsible for the train and its contents.[321] Jazlowiecki stated that Illinois
has no limit on compensation for non-economic damage like emotional distress, and that he
foresaw the verdict in 24 to 36 months.[321] Another lawsuit filed in Chicago, Illinois on behalf of
ten victims is asking for over $50 million in damages.[321]
397
Tafisa Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway and Western Petroleum Company have also announced
intent to seek damages.[323]
In mid-July, Burkhardt indicated “Whether we can survive is a complex question. We’re trying to
analyze that right now.”[324] On August 7, hours after Quebec health minister Réjean Hébert
stated that the province may sue to recover costs of its aid to victims,[325] MMA filed for
bankruptcy protection under US Chapter 11 and Canada's Companies Creditors Arrangement
Act.[326] As many of the suits name multiple defendants, typically oil companies including World
Fuel Services, the cases continued to progress despite MMA's bankruptcy filings.[321]
A $200 million legal settlement was proposed in January 2015, but remains subject to
government approval in both nations.[327]
Regulatory impact
On July 23, 2013, Transport Canada issued an emergency directive[328] requiring at least two
persons operate trains carrying tank cars of dangerous materials, prohibiting dangerous material
trains left on the mainline unattended, requiring locomotive cabs on unattended trains be locked
and reverser handles removed to prevent the train being put into gear, imposing requirements for
setting hand brakes on trains unattended for more than an hour and requiring both the automatic
brake (train brake) and independent brake (locomotive brake) be applied at their maximum force
for trains unattended for an hour or less.[329] A ministerial emergency directive remains in effect
for six months, although it can be renewed.[330]
The United States Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a number of emergency orders
on August 2, 2013, to all railroad operating companies in the country. The orders include a
requirement for railroad companies to develop and submit to the FRA a plan to notify the agency
when trains carrying hazardous materials will be left unattended as well as processes to secure
the trains in their positions and to ensure that the locomotive doors are locked.[331] Before leaving
a train unattended, railroad crews will need to notify dispatchers of the number of hand brakes
that are being applied on the train along with the number of cars, the train length, the grade of the
track on which the train is parked and the current weather conditions.[331]
The Federal Railroad Administration is investigating multiple safety issues with crude oil
shipments, which are the fastest-growing hazardous material shipments by rail. On July 29, the
FRA requested American Petroleum Institute members provide data on content of their crude
shipments and crude oil loading practices and proposed to do its own testing if the data were not
made available.[332] The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration launched a 'Bakken blitz' of inspections of North Dakota oil trains in
August 2013, citing ongoing concerns about improper identification of the chemical composition
and flash point of flammable cargo.[333]
According to the FRA, chemical composition of the oil is not being properly identified on
shipping manifests, despite the use of corrosive or volatile chemicals in the fracking process.
Content of blended crude from multiple wells is not tested before loading, even though FRA
indicates that “it is critical that shippers determine the proper classification of the crude oil” as a
398
tanker with a higher safety classification (and not the standard DOT-111A car) is required for
corrosive or explosive materials. The information is needed for provision to first responders and
emergency services during a disaster.
In an increasing number of incidents, chemicals such as hydrochloric acid (used to release crude
from oil well rock formations) have corroded tanks, covers, valves and fittings. As unit trains of
tanker cars do not pass over weigh-in-motion scales in classification yards, many are overloaded,
increasing risks of leakage as oil expands with temperature. The result has been twice the number
of leaks from crude oil shipments as from alcohol shipments, the next highest hazardous
material, even though comparable volumes of each travel by rail.[332]
In January 2014, Canada's Transportation Safety Board recommended that DOT-111 / CTC111A oil-by-rail cars built before October 2011 be replaced with the newer, reinforced design. It
also recommended carriers perform route planning and analysis and advocated mandated
emergency response plans. While TSB set no clear deadlines, Irving Oil plans to replace the
remainder of its own fleet of DOT-111's by the end of April 2014 and ask its suppliers to
modernise by the year's end.[334]
In February 2014, the US Federal Railroad Administration placed crude oil under the most
protective two sets of hazardous materials shipping requirements and issued an order requiring
tests of crude oil before shipment by rail.[335]
In April 2014, the Canadian government required a phaseout or retrofit of the older DOT-111 oilby-rail cars on a three-year deadline and mandated emergency response plans for all oil
shipments by rail.[336]
Rebuilding efforts
While the people, the archives and the historic buildings which were lost will never be replaced,
the town intends to rebuild.
A new group of four 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2) commercial buildings[215] were built to
accommodate some displaced businesses[337] on a new site near the sports centre.[338][339] In
August 2013, consultants began surveying the site of a new bridge across the Chaudière River
from Papineau Street to Lévis Street,[340] to serve the new commercial district.[341] New rail track
reconnected the local industrial park to the Montreal line in November 2013.[342] Private
residences were expropriated to make way for redevelopment in Fatima.[343][344]
Students at Laval University, Université de Montréal,[345] and Université de Sherbrooke[346]
collected tens of thousands of books for a new library.[347] Libraries in other Quebec communities
solicited book donations[348][349] and searched local archives for information on Mégantic's
history. The new library, which had received 100,000 donated volumes (some of them
duplicates) by September 2013,[350] opened on May 5, 2014,[351][352] as La Médiathèque
municipale Nelly-Arcan in honour of an author born in the town.[353][354]
A temporary "Musi-Café d'été"[355][356] hosted numerous Quebec musicians, including MarieMai, Louis-Jean Cormier, Karim Ouellet, Vincent Vallières, Michel Rivard, Dan Bigras, Richard
399
Desjardins, Claude Dubois, Paul Piché and Fred Pellerin, in a series of free benefit concerts in a
150-seat tent from August 2 until mid-September 2013, raising money for local rebuilding
efforts.[355][357] A new Musi-Café[358] opened in a $1.6 million building[359] at the foot of the new
Papineau Street bridge[360] on December 15, 2014.[361]
Métro opened its new Métro Plus Lac-Mégantic grocery store on October 15, 2014.[362] As of
2014 Dollarama has not yet returned; Subway has reopened in one of the new buildings on
Papineau Street[363] and Jean Coutu is operating from reduced, temporary facilities until a new
location can be built in Fatima.[364]
Local demands to re-route the rails around the town also remain unaddressed, despite the risk
that oil shipments could resume by the start of 2016.[365]
Citations
1.
 "Press Release: Derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec". Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway.
July 6, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  "Explosions à Lac-Mégantic : un mort confirmé" (in French). Radio-Canada. La Presse
Canadienne. July 6, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  Johnston, Robert. "RAIL SAFETY ADVISORY LETTER – 08/13: Securement of
Unattended Locomotives". Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Retrieved 12 August 2013.
  Johnston, Robert. "RAIL SAFETY ADVISORY LETTER – 09/13: Securement of
Equipment and Trains Left Unattended". Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Retrieved 12
August 2013.
  "Train company averages two crashes per year; As confirmed deaths reach 13 in the small
Canadian town, investigators look into whether a fire an hour before the explosions may have
played a role". Portland Press Herald. July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  "Insight: How a train ran away and devastated a Canadian town". Reuters. July 8, 2013.
Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic: on confirme la mort d'une personne". 106,9 Mauricie (in French). 98.5 FM.
July 6, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  "Search resumes in Lac-Mégantic for 5 still missing". 2013-07-21. Retrieved 2013-07-21.
  "Une dernière marche au centre-ville pour les résidents de Lac-Mégantic". Radio-Canada
Estrie.
  Richard Johnson (July 8, 2013). "Timeline of Key Events in Lac-Megantic, Quebec Train
Disaster". National Post.
  "10 of Canada's worst train accidents". Maclean's. July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  "Canada train derailment: Death toll at 50; Lac-Megantic residents jeer rail CEO".
Associated Press. July 11, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  "One-man train crews are unsafe, says union negotiating with Montreal, Maine and Atlantic
Railway". The Bangor Daily News.
  Rémi Tremblay (2014-02-20). "Le pétrole "va" rouler à nouveau en ville!". Écho de
Frontenac. Retrieved 2014-06-16.
400
  "Rail chief discusses impact of GNP: Paper mill's problems forced layoffs, wage cuts by
MM&A". Bangor Daily News. 2003-03-14. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
  "Lac Megantic: Railway's history of cost-cutting". Toronto Star. 2013-07-11. Retrieved
2013-08-01.
  In Le futur propriétaire de MMA veut maintenir un lien de confiance, Rémi Tremblay,
L'Echo de Frontenac (March 20, 2014), the subsequent owner of the Central Maine and Quebec
Railway estimates at $10-20 million dollars the investment required (over three years) to repair
the damaged track.
  "Rail Safety Rules - Subpart D - Track Structure". Transport Canada. Retrieved 2013-08-15.
  Les Perreaux (2013-07-27). "Journey to the end of the MM&A Railway line". The Globe
and Mail. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
  Kim Mackrael (2013-08-05). "MM&A issued warnings to operators to slow down due to
track conditions". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2013-08-05.
  "Lac-Mégantic : la sécurité du type de wagons déjà mise en cause" (in French). RadioCanada. July 8, 2013. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic: What we know, what we don't know". The Gazette. July 7, 2013. Retrieved
July 7, 2013.
  "Train blast death toll rises". Stuff.co.nz. July 6, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  "The equation of a disaster: what went wrong in Lac-Mégantic". The Globe & Mail. July 14,
2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
  David Shaffer (July 9, 2013). "Blast in Quebec exposes risks of shipping crude oil by rail".
Star-Tribune (Minneapolis-St Paul). Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  "Runaway train carrying Bakken crude to New Brunswick". Reuters. July 6, 2013. Retrieved
6 July 2013.
  "Canadian oil train was headed for Irving's Saint John refinery". Reuters. July 7, 2013.
Retrieved 7 July 2013.
  "Les wagons de Lac-Mégantic provenaient du CP". Journal Les Affaires. July 9, 2013.
Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  "Lac Mégantic explosion: Train derailment a local risk due to old technology". Toronto Star.
July 8, 2013. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic probe docs note Irving Oil's growing rail use". CBC News. December 17,
2013.
  "Safety rules lag as oil transport by train rises". CBC News. 2013-07-09. Retrieved 2013-0709.
  "Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release
and Fire". National Transportation Safety Board. June 19, 2009. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
  "Obama administration delays oil train safety rules". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved 201308-18.
  "Des wagons autorisés, mais non sécuritaires" (in French). La Presse. July 8, 2013.
Retrieved July 8, 2013.
  "In the wake of bankruptcy, keeping Maine’s rail network intact ‘strategically critical’". The
Bangor Daily News.
  "Owner of MMA railway says ‘Maine is not a growth state’". The Bangor Daily News.
  "One-man train crews are unsafe, says union negotiating with Montreal, Maine and Atlantic
401
Railway". The Bangor Daily News.
  Sambides, Nick (2010-05-28). "MMA Railway using remote control — Penobscot". Bangor
Daily News. Retrieved 2013-08-06.
  Post (2013-07-11). "Union Defends Quebec Train Engineer's Safety Record". Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved 2013-08-06.
  "Lac-Mégantic became an episode of Breaking Bad". Toronto Star. 2013-07-13. Retrieved
2013-08-06.
  "Lac-Mégantic runaway train and derailment investigation summary". Transportation Safety
Board of Canada. Retrieved 2014-08-19.
  "Lac-Mégantic derailment: Anatomy of a disaster". The Globe and Mail. 2014-08-19.
  "Lac-Mégantic report: 18 things that went wrong". The Globe and Mail. 2014-08-19.
  "Québec : l'explosion du train a ravagé Lac-Mégantic" (in French). RTL. July 7, 2013.
Retrieved July 7, 2013.
  CBC (2013-07-07). "Leaking oil from Lac-Mégantic disaster affects nearby towns; Critics
ask why trains are carrying oil through populated areas". CBC. Retrieved 2013-07-15.
  "Lac Mégantic: Quebec train explosion site still too hot to search for missing". Toronto Star.
July 8, 2013. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
  Fred W. Frailey (2013-07-13). "The wages of Lac Megantic". Trains Magazine Online.
Retrieved 2013-07-14.
  "Lac Mégantic 'may well be the most devastating rail accident in Canadian history'".
National Post. 2013-07-12. Retrieved 2013-07-14.
  "MM&A regularly left loaded trains unsupervised, using siding track for storage". The
Globe and Mail. July 24, 2013. Retrieved July 24, 2013.
  "Selon le Bureau de sécurité des Transports, la MMA a été prévenue à temps". Le Devoir.
July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  "Transports Canada fait le point: laisser un train seul sur une voie principale est inhabituel".
Le Devoir. July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  "Lac-Megantic train explosion: a regulatory failure?". Toronto Star.
  Étienne, Anne-Lovely and Bélisle, Sarah (8 July 2013). "Explosion Lac-Mégantic: Employé
de la MMA Lac-Mégantic: conducteur muet,". le Journal de Montréal. Retrieved 9 July 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic : la compagnie évoque le système de freinage à air". Radio Canada (in
French). July 7, 2013. Retrieved July 10, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic unsealed documents say train engineer didn’t follow MM&A rules". CBC
Montreal. Retrieved 2014-06-16.
  Muise, Monique (2013-07-09). "Lac-Mégantic: What causes a runaway train?". Montreal
Gazette. Retrieved 2013-07-09.
  "Quebec crash puts hand brakes on rail cars under scrutiny". The Globe and Mail. July 10,
2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic investigators seek urgent rail safety review". CBC Montreal. 2013-07-19.
Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  "MMA et la règle 112 : des infractions à répétition, aucune sanction". Radio-Canada. 201402-12. Retrieved 2014-04-23.
  "Safety advisory letter to Transport Canada on the securement of unattended locomotives, 19
July 2013". Transportation Safety Board. July 19, 2013. Retrieved July 19, 2013.
402
  Cheadle, Bruce (2010-04-16). "No rules against leaving unattended trains on main tracks:
Transport Canada". Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved 2013-07-11.
  "Lac Megantic explosion: Engineer Tom Harding 'beside himself' after disaster". Toronto
Star. 2013-07-09. Retrieved 2013-07-09.
  "Lac Mégantic fire: timeline". The Gazette. July 7, 2013. Retrieved July 7, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic: le conducteur du train reste muet". Journal de Montréal. July 8, 2013.
Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  "Lac-Mégantic : le conducteur n'aurait pas respecté les règles de la MMA". Radio-Canada.
2014-05-13. Retrieved 2014-06-16.
  "Des étincelles avant l'explosion". CHMP-FM 98,5 Montreal. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  "Broken piston led to train