The joint safety advisory (SA) from the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration
(PHMSA) that I
described last week was published today in the Federal Register (78 FR
48224-48229). It addresses some of the safety issues that have been
identified in the on-going investigation of the recent fatal derailment in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec, Canada.
NOTE: The safety advisory uses an interesting spelling (?)
of the city name that I haven’t seen before; “Lac-M[eacute]gantic”. I am not a
French (or French-Canadian) speaker so I’m not sure what that is all about. I
will continue to use the common American spelling that has made its way into
the news media with appropriate apologies to any readers from Quebec.
Planned Meeting of
the RSAC
The SA notes that an emergency meeting of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
will be called to discuss potential regulatory actions that the FRA might
consider in light of this accident. A meeting notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
The FRA intends to have the RSAC address the following
issues:
• The formulation of a task
statement regarding appropriate crew size for an RSAC working group to consider;
and
• The appropriate types and
quantities of hazardous materials that should preclude trains transporting such
materials from being left unattended on main track and sidings.
Categorization of
Hazardous Materials
One of the potential issues raised in this accident is the
flammability of crude oil. Different sources and blends of crude oil have
different flash points. This is reflected in the three different Packing Groups
that may be used for the classification of crude oil as a Class 3 hazardous
material. Those Packing Groups in-turn have an impact on what types of rail
cars may be used to transport crude oil. This has potential safety implications
if the crude oil has a lower flash point than reflected in the shipping paperwork
and an improper rail car selection is made.
As a result, DOT is recommending
that “offerors evaluate their processes for testing, classifying and packaging
the crude oil that they offer into transportation via railroad tank car as
required by Part 173 of the HMR.”
Review Security Plans
Current DOT regulations require that offerors of hazardous
materials prepare (and keep on file) a security plan for the shipment of bulk
quantities of hazardous materials. It is not clear that those plans take into
account the potential for the unattended parking of trains carrying those rail
cars on mainlines or mainline sidings outside of rail yards. DOT is recommending
that “offerors and carriers of hazardous materials review their plans adopted
in accordance with subpart
I of part 172 [link added] of the HMR that govern the safety and security
of the transportation of railroad tank cars containing hazardous materials. In
particular DOT is
recommending that the review address “whether their existing plans
adequately address personnel security, unauthorized access, and en-route
security”
Moving Forward
Given the severity of the accident and the potential eco-political
implications of the cargo involved, I am sure that this is not the last of the
regulatory (or potential legislative) actions that will result from this tragic
event.
No comments:
Post a Comment