DOT issues oil-train rules. Industry objects. Other critics say rules too weak and deadline too slow
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/maSJd9gnQqc/-DOT-issues-oil-train-rules-Industry-objects-Other-critics-say-rules-too-weak-and-deadline-too-slow
Oil train derailment Feb. 15 near Mount Carbon, West Virginia. The Obama administration issued the final rules on oil trains Friday. The action by the Department of Transportation was spurred after several oil train derailments have caused numerous fatalities and injuries and well over a billion dollars worth of damage and clean-up costs in the United States and Canada. Moving crude oil by rail has soared from fewer than 10,000 carloads in 2008 to about 500,000 in 2014.
Here's Kate Sheppard on the matter:
The rule, from DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, applies to “high-hazard flammable trains"-that is, those with a continuous row of 20 or more tank cars loaded with flammable liquids, or those carrying a total of 35 or more tank cars with flammable liquids.
New tank cars built after Oct. 1 to carry high-hazard flammable fluids will be required to have walls 9/16th-inch thick instead of the the half-inch thickness both the oil and railroad industries wanted. The thicker the wall, the less oil that can be carried. Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes must be used on most trains carrying high-hazard flammable fluids by 2021 and all such trains by 2023 at the latest. The rules make permanent a provisional DOT rule previously imposed that requires all trains containing one or more tank cars of the older design to travel 40 mph in urban areas. Top speed for all crude oil trains will be 50 mph. There are also routing mandates.
The railroad lobby immediately trashed the action, labeling the them a "rash rush to judgment." At the same time, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington called the rules too weak:
“The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars. It’s more of a status quo rule than the real safety changes needed to protect the public and first responders.”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin agreed with Cantwell and complained, as did Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, about the speed with which the replacement cars will be substituted.
Edward R. Hamberger, president and CEO of the American Association of Railroads responded with a sharply worded complaint about the requirement for electronically controlled pneumatic brakes:
“First and foremost, the DOT has no substantial evidence to support a safety justification for mandating ECP brakes, which will not prevent accidents. The DOT couldn’t make a safety case for ECP but forged ahead anyhow. This is an imprudent decision made without supporting data or analysis. I have a hard time believing the determination to impose ECP brakes is anything but a rash rush to judgment.”
Acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg responded: “We are not an agency with a goal of making things convenient or inexpensive for industry,” she said. “Our entire goal and mission is safety.” She knows all too well that when safety collides with the bottom line, it's a rare day industry fails to object.