Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002

Business
Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules
Older Fleets Carrying Fuel Need Fire-Prevention Retrofitting, Trade Group Says

By Betsy Morris And Bob Tita
Nov. 14, 2013 12:10 a.m. ET

The nation's railroads are asking safety regulators to require that all existing tank cars that carry crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids be modified or upgraded to better withstand accidents or be "aggressively" phased out of service.

They are stopping short of recommending a deadline for the changes to the U.S. tank-car fleet or estimating the cost of the retrofits, which would be needed on 78,000 older tank cars and modifications to some of the 14,000 newer cars that don't already comply with its suggested changes. The groups said they would leave those deadline and cost details to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration, the federal agency responsible for regulating tank-car safety, which is beginning to craft new rules on tank cars.
....

Two troubling crude-by-rail accidents—the catastrophic accident in Quebec that killed 47 people last July in an inferno and another in Alabama last week—have shaken the rail industry at a time when crude oil shipments on the major freight railroads have ballooned to a projected 400,000 carloads this year from 4,700 carloads in 2006, according to the AAR.
....

There are 228,000 general-purpose tank cars in service known as DOT-111s. The AAR's proposals apply to all 92,000 DOT-111s that carry flammable liquids, but will hit hardest the 78,000 older tank cars. Another proposal would have PHMSA reclassify flammable liquids so they correspond with rail classifications (with a flash point of between 100 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit). Currently, PHMSA allows shippers to classify those as combustible, which can then be shipped in tank cars that are suitable for a variety of materials, like corn syrup.

[elleng]

1. Would like to read the entire story,

but have to pay. Anyone help?

Interested to know which rrs are asking for new regs, and their motives. Might be to handicap other rrs who don't want to or can't afford to so upgrade?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. The story ran in several newspapers.

Go to Google news and search for tankcar regulations.

The tankcars are privately owned, so the burden of upgrades is on the owners, not the carriers. The RRs fear lawsuits. They have everything to gain from tighter standards.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. DOT Agencies Evaluating Railroads' Security Plans

DOT Agencies Evaluating Railroads' Security Plans
http://ohsonline.com/articles/2013/11/20/dot-agencies-evaluating-railroads-security-plans.aspx

Nov 20, 2013

The Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration have issued a safety advisory to reinforce to railroads the importance of properly classifying Class 3 materials and ensuring the railroads' safety and security plans address the vulnerabilities cited in FRA's Aug. 7 Emergency Order No. 28. That order told the railroads to take steps within 30 days to ensure trains moving hazardous materials do not move while unattended and possibly cause a disaster similar to the July 6, 2013, derailment and explosion of a train carrying crude oil in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada.

Class 3 materials are flammable and combustible liquids. To move a large bulk quantity (792 gallons – 3,000 liters – or more), railroads must develop and adhere to a transportation safety and security plan that covers personnel security, unauthorized access, and en route security. The new advisory says FRA and PHMSA are working together on audits to make sure the safety and security plans address the vulnerabilities cited in the emergency order, and also that PMHSA is making unannounced inspections and testing to verify material classification and packing group assignments by offerors of crude oil for transport.

The two DOT agencies also issued a joint safety advisory on Aug. 7.

The Lac-Mégantic explosion and fire killed 42 people, with five more presumed dead, and extensively damaged the town. "While the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is still investigating the cause of the Lac-Mégantic accident, the catastrophic consequences of the accident and the known increase over the last several years in the rail transportation of Class 3 hazardous materials has made clear the need to review existing regulations and industry practices related to such transportation," the new advisory states. "PHMSA and FRA have worked closely to take a number of actions intended to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the United States and the agencies will continue to do so."

PHMSA extends comment period for rail tank car proposal
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/9508-phmsa-extends-comment-period-for-rail-tank-car-proposal

November 13, 2013

Washington – The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has extended the comment period on a proposal to enhance the safety and durability of rail tank cars used to transport hazardous materials.

The original deadline to submit comments was Nov. 5. In response to environmental group requests for an extension, PHMSA moved the deadline to Dec. 5. The proposal was made partly in response to recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board regarding a common non-pressure tank car model used to transport ethanol and crude oil, designated DOT 111. The board found that this tank car model is vulnerable to ruptures based on investigations of several recent train derailments.

Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Recommendations to Improve the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation (RRR)
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/05/2013-26402/hazardous-materials-rail-petitions-and-recommendations-to-improve-the-safety-of-railroad-tank-car

A Proposed Rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on 11/05/2013

I. Background
Back to Top

On September 6, 2013, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 78 FR 54849) seeking public comments on whether issues raised in eight petitions and four NTSB recommendations would enhance safety, revise, and clarify the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) with regard to rail transport. Specifically, we requested comments on important amendments that would: (1) Enhance the standardsfor DOT Specification 111 tank cars used to transport Packing Group I and II hazardous materials; (2) explore the feasibility of additional operational requirements to enhance the safe transportation of Packing Group I and II hazardous materials; (3) afford DOT greater discretion to authorize the movement of non-conforming tank cars; (4) correct regulations that allow an unsafe condition associated with pressure relief valves (PRV) on rail cars transporting carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid; (5) revise outdated regulations applicable to the repair and maintenance of DOT Specification 110, DOT Specification 106, and ICC 27 tank car tanks (ton tanks); and (6) except rupture discs from removal if the inspection itself would damage, change, or alter the intended operation of the device.

II. Comment Period Extension
Back to Top

We received a request to extend the comment period by 90-days from the Sierra Club on behalf of Climate Parents, Columbia Riverkeeper, ForestEthics, Friends of Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International, San Francisco Baykeeper, Spokane Riverkeeper, Washington Environmental Council, and the Waterkeeper Alliance. The request indicates that the primary basis for extension is to allow the public a meaningful review of these proposed changes in rail safety, especially regarding tank cars transporting crude oil and tar sands while highlighting several recent tank car incidents. The request also indicates that the recent government shutdown prevented communication with DOT staff for review of the technical proposals during the initial 60-day comment period.

Although PHMSA normally considers an initial 60-day comment period sufficient time to review and respond to rulemaking proposals, due to PHMSA's desire to collect meaningful input from a number of potentially affected stakeholders, PHMSA is consenting to the commenter request to extend the comment period to ensure sufficient time for public review. However, we do not consider a 90-day extension to be warranted. Accordingly, in the interest of moving this rulemaking action forward in a timely manner, we believe, extending the comment period by 30 days would allow sufficient to time to conduct a thorough review.

Go to Regulations.gov and look for the items at this docket number: PHMSA-2012-0082