Public Comments on PHMSA HHFT NPRM – 09-14-14

This is part of a continuing a series of blog posts that will look at the public comments on the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on high-hazard flammable trains (HHFT). Earlier posts include:

Public Comments on PHMSA HHFT NPRM – 08-16-14

Public Comments on PHMSA HHFT NPRM – 09-06-14

There are 33 new posts this week including 22 that are part of the RiverKeeper.org letter writing campaign that I mentioned yesterday. There is also an interesting new letter writing campaign that appears to be family based with 7 nearly identical comments about the risk posed by railroad tracks near a family member’s house.

There is an interesting comment on rights-of-way (ROW) that are shared between freight and passenger lines. The commenter recommends that lines sharing ROW should be constructed in accordance with the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) suggested standards of 25 ft separation of such lines.

I have noticed an interesting thread running through many of the negative comments against the transportation of crude oil. Most commenters mention both Bakken crude and tar sands oil as if they showed the same hazards. I think that this traces back to the fact that many environmentalists object to the tar sands oil extraction techniques and also object to the fracking techniques that are used in the Bakken fields. The two sets of objections are substantially different (as are the extraction techniques), but it is easier to lump the two together than keep the public's attention through explanations of the problems of each.

We have just two weeks left in the comment period for this rulemaking. I expect that we will start to see a trickle of comments from industry in the coming week, but I expect that the railroads and oil industry associations will be starting to file their requests for an extension of the comment period. A sixty day comment period for a rulemaking as complex as this is certainly shorter than normal; especially since there were new items added since the original ANPRM was published.

The Administration is under pressure, however, to ‘get something done’ quicker rather than better. I expect that they will deny those petitions. This will probably serve to delay the completion of this rule even more as the organizations principally affected will be requesting multiple meetings with the OMB’s Office of Information Regulatory Affairs once the final rule is submitted to that office for approval. Adding 30 days to the comment period now could eliminate the need for multiple rounds of OIRA-Industry-PHMSA back and forth later. It could also help reduce the number of post-final-rule law suits that would delay implementation. 

Public Comments on PHMSA HHFT NPRM – 09-06-14

This is part of a continuing a series of blog posts that will look at the public comments on the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on high-hazard flammable trains (HHFT). Earlier posts include:

Public Comments on PHMSA HHFT NPRM – 08-16-14

There were 21 comments submitted in the last three weeks. There are more than that listed in the docket, but a number of commenters submitted multiple copies because they did not realize that their posts were not going to appear in real time. Even the 21 comment number is a little misleading since there are a couple of repeats of comments from multiple people, but it is too early to tell if this is an organized comment campaign (like I have seen from various environmental groups) at this point.

Most of the comments come from individuals with no direct connection to the hazmat shipping industry. They are mainly from people that feel that they are being put at risk from the shipment of crude oil through their communities. Their comments are generally simplistic, but represent a very real political reality that this is a problem that has significant potential impacts beyond the regulated community. Unfortunately, for these folks the comments are typically their only potential contribution to improving the safety of the rail lines that pass through their communities. While simplistic and perhaps poorly informed the comments need to be taken into account.

There are comments from two people directly connected to the problem; a railroad consultant and a freight locomotive engineer. The engineer calls out three factors that are not addressed in the NPRM:

• A two person crew should be mandatory on all trains, especially key trains;

• The engineer's workload should not increase for safety reasons; and

• A rational amount of buffer cars on the head end should be mandatory

The consultant identifies a number of interesting points that have generally been missing from much of the discussion to date. First off, he reminds us that the DOT 111 cars are not all constructed the same. Newer models (since the late 1980’s?) are constructed with normalized steel and are much more resistant to rupture. Second, his list of necessary retrofits for those normalized steel cars consists of just three improvements:

• Head shields;

• Safety valves; and

• Removable valve handles.

The detailed discussion of the other NPRM safety measures contained in the consultant’s comments is well worth reading.

In the next week or two we should start to see more in the way of corporate comments on the rule.

Public Comments on PHMSA HHFT NPRM – 08-16-14

This is the first in a series of blog posts that will look at the public comments on the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on high-hazard flammable trains (HHFT).

As is typical for the early comments received on a rulemaking, the six comments in the first two weeks of the comment period come from private individuals. Organizations usually take longer to develop, coordinate and publish their comments. Individuals have a shorter response time, but their comments are frequently less technically developed and focus on limited solution sets.

Less than Helpful Comments

One commentor provides an up-to-date list of ‘Reference National Standards for a 21^st Century HMR’. Few of the standards on the list have anything to do with this NPRM. Yet another commentor provides a lengthy diatribe against the Surface Transportation Board and railroads in general and proposes a complete reworking of the rail transportation system.

Simple Answers

A commentor from Washington State points out that there will be an increase in oil train traffic in that state in the coming years because of planned port and refinery expansions. This writer wants the DOT-111 cars immediately banned and briefly outlines additional safety measures that should be taken; including:

• Sensible speed limits;

• Rescheduling trains to avoid peak times;

• Notifying affected communities of increasing rail traffic,

• Requiring two operators for each train,

• Requiring at least one of these operators is alert at all times; and

• Automatic brakes (dead-man switches).

Another commentor wants to stop any more increases in crude oil shipments until the railcar fleet is replaced with safer models.

More Detailed Suggestions

Another writer acknowledges the problems with railcar safety and poor system maintenance, but attributes the current problem of “explosions; the 300 foot fireballs, walls of fire, incinerated buildings, vaporized humans, fouled water, and poisoned soil” to the lack of stabilization of the crude oil by removing the most volatile “NGLs” (natural gas liquids). He wants the government of North Dakota to require the removal of NGLs prior to their being loaded for transport.

Another writer of an obvious technical background wants to ensure that the hazard classification of crude oil is correct by requiring a detailed certificate of analysis (that would include “ include dissolved organic and inorganic gasses, % composition of aromatic and aliphatic compounds and their identity and quantification of inorganic substances including radioisotope identification”) to accompany each shipment. He would also require an independent lab corroboration of the analysis at the 95% confidence level.

More Comments to Come

We should start to see comments coming in from some of the industries involved and the various advocacy groups interested in this issue. Interestingly there have not been any requests yet for either public meetings or a delay in the relatively short response window (60 days) provided for this NPRM. That will almost certainly change.