THIS IS NOT ABOUT INCOME INEQUALITY. Doesn’t involve Warren Buffett or the Koch brothers (er, not directly anyway). This is about oil train safety.
Another crude oil train just derailed this past week, exploding cars dumped into the James River in Lynchburg, Va. Could have been much worse. A 100-car oil train right in town. Could have destroyed the town. But it was only going 24 miles per hour, was properly operated and apparently had no mechanical problems. It’s thought the ground along the riverbank gave way beneath the tracks. That’s comforting.
In the midst of this crude-by-rail (CBR) rush, the railroads repeatedly tout a 99-percent safety record. Really? What does that mean? Ninety-nine percent of what? How do you account for all of these accidents lately?
Amazing how fast this CBR infrastructure ramped up. An almost 50-fold increase in six years. I have no idea how something like that can be accomplished, but I do know they didn’t sweat all the small stuff like, oh, issues of life and death, health and safety.
U.S. rail is reported to have spilled more oil in 2013 than in the previous 37 years combined, 1.15 million gallons. That figure doesn’t even include Canadian spills like the 1.5 million gallons at Lac Megantic alone. The Association of American Railroads reported carrying about 434,000 carloads of crude last year, 12.5 billion gallons, so a few million gallons spilled here or there is just a drop in the bucket.
The rail industry quotes a 99.998-percent safety record based on billion tons per mile successfully delivered to its destination. In other words, if one car of a 100-car train falls off the tracks, splits open and blows up, but the rest of the cargo survives unscathed, the safety rating of that train remains 99 percent.
I guess that’s a useful stat to entice oil producers, but it’s not what interests me. I want to know how often the trains run into trouble.
A 2013 U.S. State Department assessment comparing pipeline to rail noted trains have an “increased likelihood of spills.” The more trains, the more likely an accident. From 2008 to 2013, the annual number of carloads of crude on the rails jumped from around 9,500 to more than 400,000. The number of accidents likewise skyrocketed.
Perhaps a more useful way to look at things from our side of the tracks comes from a Tim Truscott Facebook page that maintains a running list of bomb train derailments in North America (www.facebook.com/notes/bomb-trains/2014-the-year-in-bomb- train-derailments/250370288468161). Found it via Roger Straw’s terrifically informative blog across the water, The Benicia Independent (beniciaindependent.com).
Mr. Truscott states, “By ‘bomb train,’ I mean those trains hauling one or more cars of crude oil, fuel oil, ethanol, methanol, propane, butane, liquified natural gas (methane), vinyl chloride, ammonium nitrate or high-nitrogen fertilizer such as anhydrous ammonia, phosphoric acid or some other highly volatile or especially toxic or caustic cargo. I’m also counting derailments if the engine or engines derail and cause a diesel fuel spill. So far in North America in 2014, we have seen an average of one bomb train derailment every five days.”
He lists 23 incidents so far this year. I suppose that’s just 1 percent of something. I prefer to think of it as one per week.
So when I hear that whistle blow and I halt my walk to the waterfront as the next oil train passes, I’ll have to wonder: Is that this week’s 1-percenter coming down the line?
Guy Cooper is a member of the Martinez Environmental Group (www.mrtenvgrp.com). This article first appeared in the Martinez News-Gazette on May 8.
Sharing is caring!
Interesting article. The only thing you leave out is the new car regulation and the cars purchased by Valero. They are not the DOT-111s that in almost all cases were the cars caring the crude in these ACCIDENTS. Accidents do happen and we all do not want them. More cars equals more roads and more accidents. Millions of airline flights a day but when one goes down it does have a very heavy lose of life and we do not want that to happen at all. But it does. Commuter train accidents on the east coast are very frequent and do have lose of life. I personally think you have a better chance of no accidents here in Benicia with Crude by Rail than say trying to cross Military either north or south. Now that is a challenge and the city says its safe. One accident with lose of life and we shall see what the engineers now have to say. I do trust the city engineers but as I say accidents do happen. No one wants our health and safety put in jeopardy. Automobile accidents kill over 40,000 folks a year. Are we now going to start banning autos in Benicia. Oh I forgot the anti fossil fuel group wants us to commute by bus and get out of our cars.. Well look at the accidents on the freeways that are all around our city. Seems we have one death a week. Well have a commuter bus accidents and it could be serious. I hope not. Engineers are very highly qualified and we do expect them to do their jobs at a very high degree of safety. But guess what accidents do happen and we all must work together to make it safe and healthy and not use scare tactics. The local group against crude by rail is simply a group that is anti fossil fuel Just watch they will go after the tankers and pipelines next. All agenda drIiven ideals of anti fossil fuel Expect no solutions from this group. Just scare tactics. By the way nothing new in the article but still very interesting. I did not see an attack on the fossil fule industry or any of the l;ocal refineries. Your points are well taken but as we speak all are being addressed. The DEIR will be out June 10th and then the fireworks will really start. Who needs the 4th of July fireworks this gang of four will give us more than we bargained for. Just keep your eyes open and listen to this group and their anti fossil fuel agenda with no solutions.. just my opinon after watching this small gang work their scare tactics.
Fair enough, but even if there’s just a small incremental risk (however you measure it), why should the community accept it? The risks already seem high enough without this project.
I am also concerned – very concerned – with how much preparation we have in terms of First Responders. These accidents are highly technical and require highly technical responses – both in personnel and equipment. Now, I know, Valero will say they already have this covered, but is there anyplace one can actually compare what they have on hand in terms of equipment and people to handle such an emergency? In the VA accident, there was simply not the response necessary to keep this contained, and now the James River is polluted horribly. I realize we have a lot of refineries around the area who could possibly be counted on to pitch in, but the scope of a similar accident in a more populated and ecologically fragile area such as Benicia cannot be compared to those out in the country like outside Lynchburg or in Outoftheway, North Dakota. Has any study been done about what, exactly, Valero and the city have available, AND in place, to handle the inevitable accident or derailment? Seems to me there is too much “hindsight is 20/20” going on after these incidents.