Review – HR 8410 Introduced – Train Dispatching Systems

Last month Rep Gillen (D,NY) introduced HR 8410, the Safe Tracks Act. The bill would require DOT to revise 49 CFR 236.911 to remove the exemption for railroad dispatch systems from the train control system standards of 49 CFR Part 236 Subpart H, Standards for processor-based signal and train control systems. No new funding is authorized. 

Moving Forward  

Gillen, and three of her five cosponsors {Rep Garcia (D,IL), Rep Foushee (D,NC), and Rep Nehls (R,TX)}, are members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered by the Committee. I suspect that there will be significant Republican opposition to this legislation since it would extend the regulatory coverage of train control systems to dispatch systems. That would have some costs for railroads associated with that change.  

For more information about the provisions of this bill, including a brief look at the current regulatory framework, see my article at CFN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-8410-introduced-train-dispatching - subscription required. 

Review - NTSB Publishes 2 ANPRM’s for Transportation Investigations

Today the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published two advanced notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (88 FR 60164-60165 and 88 FR 60166-60167) for “Authority of NTSB in Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations”. The two rulemakings would provide definitions for key terms used in existing NTSB regulations at 49 CFR 831.40(a) that were not defined in US Code at (49 USC 1131):

• ‘Substantial property damage’, and

• ‘Significant injury to the environment’

Public Comments

The NTSB is soliciting comments on both rulemakings. Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov) using the docket numbers listed below:

• Railroad rulemaking - NTSB-2023-0007, and

• Pipeline rulemaking - NTSB-2023-0008

Comments on both should be submitted by October 30^th, 2023.

 

For more information on both rulemakings, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/ntsb-publishes-2-anprms-for-transportation - subscription required.

HR 2999 Introduced – Hazardous Train Event

Last month, Rep Deluzio (D,PA) introduced HR 2999, the Assistance for Local Heroes During Train Crises Act. The bill would establish the Hazardous Train Event Emergency Reimbursement Fund which would provide funds to emergency response personnel in the event of a newly defined ‘Hazardous Train Event’ declared by FRA. The monies for the fund would come from a levy on hazardous materials rail shippers and railroads. No other funding is authorized.

This is a companion bill (identical language) to S 844 [removed from paywall] that was introduced earlier last month by Sen Casey (D,PA). No action has been taken in the Senate on that bill.

Moving Forward

Neither Deluzio, nor his sole cosponsor {Rep Fitzpatrick (R,PA)} are members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there is probably not enough influence to see this bill considered in Committee. The shipper and railroad fees to support the Fund will ensure that railroads and chemical manufacturers will oppose this bill. If the bill were considered in Committee, it may pass along partisan lines, but it will not have enough support to be considered by the full Senate.

HR 6499 Introduced – Rail Car Coverings

Earlier this week, Rep Meng (D,NY) introduced HR 6499, the Train Coverings for Community Safety Act. The bill would require DOT to “prescribe regulations requiring materials transported by rail to be completely covered while in transit, including while being held, delayed, or transferred.”

Neither Meng, nor her sole cosponsor {Rep. Suozzi (D,NY)}, are members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there is little chance that this bill will be considered by that Committee. If the bill were considered, I suspect that unless it was significantly revised, there would not be adequate support for it to pass.

This appears to be one of those not unusual bills that are introduced from time to time to respond to the concerns of a small number of influential constituents. I cannot find any news reports, but suspect that there is a rail line that runs through the adjacent districts of Meng and Suozzi on Long Island that routinely transports some product in open hopper cars that causes some concerns to nearby residents who have complained to their congresscritters. This bill would be ‘proof’ that their representative had ‘done something’.

This very short (one effective sentence) bill has a number of problems. First it provides for directed rulemaking which essentially cuts the public out of the process. Second it vaguely requires “materials transported by rail to be completely covered”. While this would certainly cover open hopper cars (pun intended), it would also apply to anything transported on flat cars, or auto transport cars. Most of the freight on those cars causes no problem that would be addressed by ‘covering’ the freight. It would appear that little thought and no railroad experience went into the crafting of this bill.

FRA Announces RSAC Meeting – 04-07-16

Today the DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration published a meeting notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 14515-14516) for a public meeting of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee in Washington, DC on April 7^th 2016. The RSAC was formed to develop new regulatory standards, through a collaborative process, with all segments of the rail community working together to fashion mutually satisfactory solutions on safety regulatory issues.

Status reports will be presented by the following working groups (links are for the task statements for the working gourp - .PDF download):

• Remote Control Locomotive;

• Track Standards;

• Hazardous Materials Issues; and

• Rail Integrity

While this is a public meeting, there is nothing in the notice that would indicate that feedback from the public, either oral or written, will be accepted for this meeting.

FRA Publishes Train Securement Final Rule

Today the DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 47349-47386) to amend the brake system safety standards (49 CFR 232) for freight and other non-passenger trains and equipment to strengthen the requirements relating to the securement of unattended equipment. This is the same rule that FRA announced a week ago. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule was published in September of last year.

Definitions

This rule makes changes to §232.5 by adding a new term, moving a definition into this section, and changing a term without changing the definition. Those three terms are respectively

∙ Mechanical securement device;

∙ Unattended equipment {from §232.103(n)};

∙ Yard {from yard limits also defined in §218.35(a) with a conflicting definition}.

Rule Coverage

A minor change in wording from the NPRM was made in the new §232.103(n)(6); the term ‘loaded tank car’ is used instead of ‘loaded freight car’. With this new wording, the new changes in securement requirements now applies to {new §232.103(n)(6)(i)}:

∙ Any loaded tank car containing PIH material, including anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solutions; or

∙ Twenty (20) or more loaded tank cars or loaded intermodal portable tanks of any one or any combination of PIH materials (including anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solutions), or any flammable gas, flammable or combustible liquid, explosives, or a hazardous substance listed at §173.31(f)(2) of this title.

For purposes of this rule rail cars containing a residue will not be considered in determining if a freight train is covered under the rule.

The Plan

The new rule includes basically the same plan requirements found in Emergency Order #28 which this rule supersedes. Railroads are still required to have the required plan in place before they can secure and leave unattended a covered train outside of a yard. There is only one change in the plan requirements:

The final rule allows a railroad to leave a train or equipment unattended on mainline track that is running through a yard or on mainline track that is adjacent to the yard without covering the location in the railroad's plan.

FRA still reserves the right to review such plans and direct changes in them when necessary. They still will not require the plans to be approved by FRA prior to their use.

Securement

There are some differences in the securement requirements in this rule and in the Emergency Order #28. The FRA has removed the specific requirement for railroads to “review, verify, and adjust, as necessary” the securement procedures to be employed in support of this rule. The FRA is also discontinuing the requirement from EO #28 of preparing a written verification of the securement procedure used on each unattended train.

A couple of changes were made from the proposed wording in the NPRM. One change is found in the revised §232.103(n)(1); The new language now makes it clear that at least one hand brake must be set on unattended trains. A change to §232.103(n)(2) removes the words ‘on a grade’ from the description of areas where air brakes cannot be relied upon to hold standing unattended equipment.

The discussion in the preamble seeks to clarify that the final rule requires all unattended covered trains to be secured in accordance with the new §232.103(n)(8). The exception for trains left unattended in yards or on mainlines adjacent to yards only applies to the plan requirements of the new §232.103(n)(7).

Effective Dates

The effective date for the requirements of this new rule is October 5^th, 2015. Emergency Order #28 is rescinded on October 5^th, 2015. Petitions for reconsideration must be received by September 25^th, 2015. 

OMB Approves Extension of Bakken Train Notification ICR

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had approved the extension of DOT’s information collection request supporting the Secretary’s May 7^th, 2014 Emergency Order concerning notification requirements for trains carrying one million gallons of Bakken crude oil. The Department had asked for a three year extension of the ICR, but OIRA only approved the extension until March 31, 2016.

The ICR extension made some minor changes to the expected annual burden estimates (increased the number of responses by 10 and decreased the hours burden by 5). The reasons for the changed estimate are explained in paragraph 15 of the supporting document [.DOC download] provided to OIRA.

EO and HHFT Reporting Requirements

The reporting requirements in the EO are substantially different than the notification requirements in the new HHFT final rule published earlier this year. The EO requires railroads to notify State Emergency Response Committees (SERCs) of routing information for any train carrying 1 million gallons of crude oil that originated in the Bakken basin.

The HHFT final rule superseded this requirement (as of April 1, 2016) by adding the any HHFT train to the list requiring the additional route planning requirements of 49 CFR 172.820. That regulation requires sort of a backdoor notification to affected Fusion Centers and local officials “who directly contact the railroad to discuss routing decisions” {§172.820(g)}. That reporting requirement is to simply provide a point of contact information for the railroads for HHFT routing information.

The detailed discussion in the HHFT final rule preamble makes it clear that one of the main reasons that DOT did not continue the requirement to report this data to the SERTs was their concern that some states had released the information under local open records requirements to anyone that requested the information. Using the notification process under §172.820 would restrict the release any routing information to persons with a need to know under the Sensitive Security Information provisions of 49 CFR 15 and 49 CFR 1520.

The DOT Secretary continued the current EO reporting requirements until March 31, 2016 because the full reporting requirements under the provisions of the HHFT rule do not start until April 1^st, 2016, after railroads have a chance to complete their initial route analysis for HHFT shipments.

Emergency Response Information

Neither of these documents really provides emergency response information to communities. The EO did require direct contact between the railroad hauling unit trains of Baaken crude oil, but there was little or no mention of actual emergency response information. This is addressed in the ICR submitted to OIRA. DOT reported that “PHMSA is now working on a new Oil Spill Response Proposed Rule that will codify the requirements of the Secretary's EO”.

PHMSA published the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for that rule last summer with no solid indication of when an NPRM will be published. There are two bills in the Senate (S 859 and S 1626) and possibly another (S 1732) that could have an impact on this rulemaking activity. In any case, it is clear that a new regulation will not be in place by the time that the current EO expires.

Committee Hearings – Week of 3-22-15

With both the House and Senate in Washington this week the budget remains a big topic, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. In addition there will be hearings on cyber security, UAVs and railroad safety.

Budget Hearings

Of specific interest to readers of this blog will be hearings on the budgets for

∙ Coast Guard;

∙ FRA-PHMSA-FMCSA; and

∙ DHS

The House Rules Committee will also be holding a hearing this evening on the consideration of the Budget Resolution later this week by the Whole House.

It has been a while since there has actually been a budget resolution signed by the President. It will be interesting to see if the House can put together a bill that the Republican almost-controlled Senate can bring to a vote under regular order.

Cybersecurity

The Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday and Wednesday on "H.R.__, Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2015". A committee draft is available, but I have not yet had a chance to review it.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

The Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will be holding a hearing on Tuesday on “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Key Considerations Regarding Safety, Innovation, Economic Impact, and Privacy”. The witness list includes:

• Margaret Gilligan, Federal Aviation Administration;
• John B. Morris, Jr., National Telecommunications and Information Administration;
• Gerald Dillingham, Government Accountability Office;
• John Villasenor, The Brookings Institution;
• Paul Misener, Amazon, Inc.; and
• Jeff VanderWerff, the American Farm Bureau Federation

Looking at the witness list it would not seem that UAV operations over critical infrastructure will get much in the way of mention at this hearing.

Railroad Safety

The Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee will hold a business meeting on Wednesday that will include a markup of S.650, the Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act.

I have just briefly reviewed this bill and, as expected, it would extend the current positive train control (PTC) installation deadline from December of this year until 2020 and provide authority to the Secretary of Transportation to further extend that deadline on a case-by-case basis until 2012.

Bills Introduced – 03-17-15

Yesterday there were 54 bills introduced in the House and Senate. Four of these bills may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

· HR 1385 - To provide for a legal framework for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes. Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX-2]

· HR 1405 - To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure railroad safety. Rep. Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3]

· S 754 - An original bill to improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes. Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC]

· S 766 - A bill to limit the retrieval of data from vehicle event data recorders, and for other purposes. Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]

HR 1385 will probably address more than small unmanned aerial vehicles, but we will have to wait to see the details.

Lipinski's HR 1405 will almost certainly address crude oil train issues among other items.

S 754 is the much publicized bill from the Senate Intelligence Committee. The formal copy of the bill has not been published by the GPO yet, but earlier draft versions did specifically include industrial control systems in the definition of information systems covered by the bill. The bill was reported without a written report when it was introduced yesterday meaning that it can be brought to the floor at anytime the leadership desires. It will be interesting to see if and when this bill gets to the floor.

S 766 may have implications for cybersecurity of automobiles, but I won't be certain of that until we see the actual language.

Bills Introduced – 09-10-14

Twenty-nine bills were introduced yesterday, but only one that will be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

S 2784 Latest Title: A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to carry out activities to improve rail safety, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Blumenthal, Richard (D,CT)

Billed as a comprehensive railroad safety bill this bill would be considered political grandstanding this late in the session if it were not for the fact that Blumenthal is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The bill is supposed to address (among a host of other rail safety issues) positive train control (PTC) system implementation and highly hazardous flammable trains.

There is a distinct possibility that this bill will be covered in next week’s markup hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. If it doesn’t make it to that hearing this bill it will almost certainly not make it to the floor of the Senate this session. Even if it does get cleared by that Committee it won’t make it to the floor before the election.

Congressional Hearings – Week of 2-23-14

The House and Senate return from their President’s Day recess this week and there are three congressional hearings slated that might be of specific interest to readers of this blog. They deal with CFATS, rail transportation safety, and the new DHS Secretary.

DHS Secretary

The new DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, has been traveling around the country learning all about the various agencies that report to him. This week he will be traveling to Capitol Hill to talk to the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. This will be a high-level discussion about a wide range of issues with very little in the way of specifics mentioned. Cybersecurity will certainly come up and perhaps chemical security, but only because of the President’s Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security Executive order.

Rail Transportation Safety

The House Transportation Committee will hold an oversight hearing on passenger and freight rail safety. According to the Staff memo about the subject matter there will be two topics of chemical safety interest; a review of Positive Train Control implementation, and the ever popular crude oil train problem. The witness list includes:

• Administrator Szabo, Federal Railroad Administration;

• Administrator Quarterman, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration;

• Mr. Sumwalt, Member, National Transportation Safety Board

• Mr. Tolman, Vice President & National Legislative Representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

• Mr. Gerard, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Petroleum Institute

• Mr. Melaniphy, President, American Public Transportation Association

• Mr. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads

This is a very large committee and members will be dropping in and leaving like it was a train station. This means that there will be a lot of repetitive questions and no one will apparently be listening to the answers. I hope the witnesses have taken their valium.

CFATS Hearing

On Thursday the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee will be holding a legislative hearing on HR 4007, a bill that would more formally authorize the current CFATS program. There is not a witness list published yet, but the first witness will almost certainly be ISCD Director Wulf followed by the standard industry and activist witnesses. I would not be surprised to see another GAO CFATS report released.

As we have come to expect over the last year and a half there will be hard questions asked about the implementation of CFATS. Two topics that will surely come up will be site security plan implementation and the personnel surety program.

On the Floor

There is no legislation currently planned to come to the floor of the House or Senate that will be of specific interest to readers of this blog. That can certainly change, particularly in the Senate.

New FRA-PHMSA Railroad Safety Advisory

Today the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a new Joint Safety Advisory in the Federal Register (78 FR 69745-69746) concerning safety and security plans for shipping Class 3 (flammable/combustible) hazardous materials by rail. This is a follow-up advisory to the one issued in July and the FRA Emergency Order 28 that was issued as a result of the “catastrophic railroad accident [that] occurred in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada” on July 6th.

Reiterate Old Guidance

There is really no new guidance offered in this Advisory. The FRA and PHMSA are reiterating the requirements for:

• The proper characterization, classification, and selection of a hazardous materials packing group as required by the Federal hazardous materials law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5128) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-177); and

• The requirement that offerors of hazardous materials by rail and rail carriers should have reviewed and revised, as appropriate, their safety and security plans required under Subpart I of Part 172 of the HMR, including the required risk assessments, to address the safety and security issues identified in EO 28 and the First Joint Advisory.

Compliance Auditing

The only new information in this advisory is in the final paragraph describing the enforcement activities that FRA and PHMSA are undertaking in support of this and the earlier safety advisory and Emergency Order. Those activities include:

• ‘Operation Classification’ - unannounced inspections and testing by PHMSA and FRA to verify the material classification and packing group assignments selected and certified by offerors of petroleum crude oil;

• PHMSA-FRA joint audits to evaluate safety and security plans and to determine whether the plans address vulnerabilities highlighted in EO 28 and the First Joint Advisory; and

• FRA inspections to determine compliance with EO 28.

Ignores Alabama Derailment

It is interesting that there is no mention in this Advisory of the FRA investigation into the recent derailment of a crude oil unit train in Alabama. While that accident did not result in the loss of life or the destruction of non-railroad property seen in Canadian derailment, it is the first such incident being actively investigated by FRA. Or at least should be being investigated by FRA, there has been no public announcement of any such investigation.

HR 3040 – Freight Rail Safety

As I mentioned just over a week ago Rep. Michaud (D,ME) introduced HR 3040, the Safe Freight Act. According to a press release the Congressman introduced this bill in response to the recent fatal derailment, fire and explosions in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

The bill would amend 49 USC Chapter 201 Subchapter II by adding §20168, Freight train crew size. The bill would require that all freight trains moved in the United States to have a minimum of two crew members; one would be a certified (IAW §20135) locomotive engineer and the second would be a certified (IAW §20163) conductor.

While the train involved in the Canadian incident was crewed by only a single person, there is currently no information that shows a direct connection between the crew size and the initiation of the accident. The best that can be said is that if a second crew member had been present, perhaps the breaks would have been set better.

The Canadian authorities have issued an emergency order that address the crew size issue on all freight trains pulling hazmat loaded tank cars, requiring two crew members. The FRA’s Emergency Order #28, published last week, did not specifically address the crew size issue other than saying that they would refer to it in an upcoming meeting of Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) later this month.

If this bill were to make it to the floor of the House, it would likely pass. It is, however, not clear that it will make it out of Committee, much less make it to the floor. It is possible however that this could be offered as an amendment to HR 2610, the FY 2014 DOT spending bill that is currently on hold in the House. It would be much more likely to get approved that way.

STB Order on TIH Liability Indemnification

Last week the Surface Transportation Board issued their ruling on a request by Union Pacific Railroad that the STB allow certain measures in its toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) chemical tariff schedule relating to requiring shippers to indemnify UP against all liabilities not caused by UP’s own negligence or fault. The STB denied UPs request. This is part of the ongoing conflict between railroads and TIH shippers.

Railroad Issues

Under the longstanding common carrier obligation railroad have a legal duty to provide reasonably priced carriage for all TIH cargos properly offered. Railroads acknowledge that obligation, but note that they assume a huge potential liability every time they transport a rail car containing TIH materials. If that car is involved in an incident where there is a release of a toxic gas, particularly a catastrophic release, they face potential law suits and other legal actions that could literally bankrupt a Class I railroad.

Over the years the various railroads have attempted to take a number of action to reduce their potential liability. They have attempted to add TIH surcharges, restrict locations from which they would accept or deliver TIH cargos, limit the routes and interchanges over which they would transport TIH cargos, and place burdensome rules on the handling of TIH cargos. In almost all cases they were stopped or severely limited in the application of these measures by the STB in its regulatory capacity.

Liability Indemnification

In this case UP requested that the STB issue a declaratory order in support of the liability provisions of Items 50 and 60 of UP Tariff 6607, “General Rules for Movement of Toxic or Poison Inhalation Commodity Shipments over the Lines of the Union Pacific Railroad”. According to the STB decision the first item “requires TIH shippers to indemnify UP and any parent or affiliated companies against ‘any and all liabilities [emphasis added] except those caused by the sole or concurring negligence or fault’ of UP” (pg 2).

STB Decision

The Board ruled against UP because the language and effects of the UP were overly broad. The Board had problems with the tariff language in two specific areas:

• Indemnification for liabilities not due to the presence of TIH; and

• Indemnification for liabilities for which protection is available without up’s tariff provisions.

In the first instance UP had argued that while there was no specific language in the tariff limiting the liability indemnification specifically to TIH associated liabilities that in actual application that is what the tariff provisions meant. STB was not impressed with this line of argument, noting that “leaving such an ambiguity in place would not adequately inform TIH shippers what service terms they are accepting under the tariff” (pg 4).

In the second instance UP had reported that the $1.2 billion dollars of commercial liability insurance that it was able to purchase in 2012 would not have been enough to cover its liabilities in the event of a catastrophic release in a major urban area. UP noted that those liability costs could run in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in that case. STB rejected that argument because under the language in the tariff the shippers “would also be required (sic) to protect UP from smaller liabilities against which UP can already protect itself through insurance” (pg 4).

There was nothing, however, in the language of the decision that indicated that the Board had any general objections to the efforts of railroads to include liability indemnification in their TIH related tariffs. They were very careful to only address the overly broad application in this particular instance. This is part of a long standing STB policy to narrowly rule on TIH issues.

I suspect that we haven’t seen the last of this issue.

FRA Safety Advisory – Train Accidents and Pipelines

Today the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a safety advisory in the Federal Register (78 FR 13747) that is based upon an accident investigation recommendation made by the National Transportation Safety Board.

NTSB Recommendation

The NTSB recommendation (R-12-04; NOTE: this link takes you to the NTSB search page; NTSB does not use permanent links to its recommendations) was a result of their investigation of the June 19^th, 2009 derailment of a CN freight train in Cherry Valley, IL. According to an NTSB letter report (pg 3) on the derailment, one of the results of that accident was that a 12” natural gas pipeline was damaged, even though it was buried much deeper than required by current regulations.

The pipeline did not leak after the accident, but the damage was such that it could have been expected to leak if it had not been examined and repaired immediately after the accident was cleared. As a result, the NTSB made the following two recommendations:

• That PHMSA inform pipeline operators about the circumstances of the accident and advise them of the need to inspect pipeline facilities after notification of accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way.

• That the FRA inform railroads about the circumstances of the accident and advise them of the need to immediately notify pipeline operators of accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way and ensure that pipeline inspections have been accomplished prior to resumption of service.

PHMSA made their notification in an Advisory Bulletin published in the Federal Register (77 FR 45417-45418) on July 31^st, 2012.

FRA Safety Bulletin

Today’s FRA Safety Bulletin states:

“Like PHMSA, FRA encourages railroads to use the 811 ``Call Before You Dig'' program to notify pipeline operators of rail accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way where pipelines are present and to ensure that pipeline inspections are accomplished prior to resumption of service. By calling 811, pipeline owners and operators will be notified of potential problems the accident may have caused to the pipeline, and enable the pipeline owners and operators to work with the involved railroads to prevent further injury to individuals cleaning up the accident site.”

Emergency Response Personnel

Local emergency response officials are probably (hopefully) more knowledgeable of major pipelines that run through their area than are the railroads that run trains through the area. Incident Commanders at all derailments should also use the 811 “Call Before You Dig” line to ensure that they are aware of all major (and minor) pipelines in the area that could have been damaged by the train cars.

The fact that this accident damaged a pipeline that was buried under 11 feet of dirt and enclosed in an 16” casing shows how much damage to underground utilities can be sustained in an incident like this. Emergency response personnel need to be cognizant of this potential danger (as if derailments weren’t dangerous enough already).