Advanced Search
December 19, 2019
Tank cars designed for use in transporting crude oil. A slightly modified design would be used for transporting methane gas (Photo credit: Roy Luck)
On October 18, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would loosen the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) for the bulk transport of refrigerated liquid methane, commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG), by rail tank car. Comments on the proposed rules, developed by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), are due on December 23, but the deadline was extended to January 13. The NRPM argues that regulatory changes are needed to accommodate the increase in extraction of methane and the need to move it to markets for export. Independent experts on railway safety, such as Fred Millar (who was quoted in a Fortune article), warn that such changes would “pose an unprecedented new level of risk for American cities,” and are being pursued hastily “because of enormous pressure to sell our fracked gas.”
The latest actions follow a 2017 petition and lobbying effort by the Association of American Railroads and the natural gas industry to loosen those restrictions to enable better access to domestic markets and ports for LNG shipments to international markets. In response to industry, President Trump issued an Executive Order in April 2019 that directed DOT to change existing regulations to allow LNG to be shipped in railcars. DOT is required to ensure public safety in any changes to its policies, but the proposed changes do not include any safety testing for moving this highly flammable cargo. Instead, the proposal would allow the railroad industry to transport LNG in rail cars that are currently allowed to move only small quantities of other flammable liquefied gases. It also responds to a special permit application from Energy Transport Solutions, a prospective LNG shipper.
Spurred on by the advent of a new technique for methane gas extraction called hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”), methane extraction in the United States increased by 77 percent from 2009 to 2019, and crude oil extraction more than doubled during that time. Despite this strong growth, the fossil fuel industry has continued to lobby the federal government to deregulate their extraction and processing businesses. Another federal proposal, initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency, would deregulate methane emissions. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat from the sun for the two decades following its release.
In the proposed rule, DOT states that PHMSA has proposed a “finding of no significant environmental impact” from the rule changes, which would allow them to go forward. The document did not, however, make any mention of the need to reduce the extraction and burning of fossil fuels to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental advocates have been arguing for many years that in order to forestall extreme climate change and avoid a massive breakdown of global ecosystems, humans must curb greenhouse gas emissions by ceasing the burning of fossil fuels. That means that most remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground. Some observers argue that the fossil fuel industry is pushing to extract as many fossil fuels (coal, oil, and methane gas) as possible before the movement to stop such activities gains enough public support to overturn the current regulatory regime, which would force extraction activities to draw down.
The supercooled rail tank cars (designated DOT-113) used to carry LNG below -260 degrees Fahrenheit have no special protections against rupture if a train derails. Independent rail experts warn that LNG is extremely hazardous if a tank car ruptures and the LNG is exposed to air, causing it to explode in an unquenchable fire. In March 2019, a train moving propane in Utah derailed and leaked toxic products into the environment. The responders decided to avoid the risk of explosion by detonating the derailed cars in place. This was only possible because the accident occurred in a rural location, but if the new regulations go into effect, many of the LNG trains will be going through urban and suburban areas. Environmental advocacy groups, such as EarthJustice, argue that the Environmental Assessment submitted by the Trump Administration’s PHMSA is completely inadequate and that a full Environmental Impact Statement is needed to address public safety and risks associated with the transportation of such a hazardous substance. Other commenters criticized PHMSA’s Environmental Assessment for stating that the risks of transporting LNG are similar to those of other cryogenic liquids that are less volatile chemically and would not be shipped in as high volumes (see page 4 of the comments submitted by Columbia Riverkeeper et al to PHMSA, on the draft Environmental Assessment for a Special Permit Request for Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail).
Since 2016, two LNG by rail pilot programs have been in operation in Alaska and Florida under Federal Railroad Administration permits, but technical and safety information on these programs has been withheld from the public. Freedom of Information Act requests from local residents produced documents that were almost completely redacted (see page 8 of EarthJustice's comments). The routes used for LNG by rail in Florida traverse highly populated coastal areas, crossing highways and sharing routes with high-speed passenger trains. PHMSA’s draft Environmental Assessment would subject virtually all major U.S. cities to the risk of an LNG by rail disaster, ignoring the long-standing industry practice of maintaining “protective distance” from concentrated populations.
In prior years, PHMSA concluded that more robust research was needed to assess the high risk of accidents at fixed LNG facilities, which have historically been located away from human population centers. The latest PHMSA assessment declined to require a similar risk research effort in approving LNG by rail, even though these trains would carry LNG on 100-car trains directly through densely populated, major U.S. cities. The Department of Transportation’s own Emergency Response Guidebook, which is used universally by North American fire and emergency services, advises that in the event of a breached refrigerated liquids transportation container, first responders should immediately isolate the scene for one mile in all directions. This would not be possible in any timely manner within a densely populated area. The PHMSA assessment argues that transporting LNG by truck would be more dangerous than by rail, but it does not take into account the higher risk of a larger, more catastrophic explosion in a rail accident due to the much larger amount of explosive material being carried. It also does not discuss the potential for terrorism associated with the transportation of LNG by rail (rail routes are more predictable than road routes). Comments submitted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were also very negative on the proposed regulatory changes for the above reasons and others. The NTSB concluded that, "it would be detrimental to public safety if PHMSA were to authorize the transportation of LNG by rail with unvalidated tank cars and lacking operational controls that are afforded other hazardous materials such as flammable liquids, as currently proposed in this NPRM." In addition, the National Association of State Fire Marshals submitted comments urging PHMSA to "reconsider your proposed actions," and stating that "more study on the topic, the tank cars, and the safety systems in place, is needed before such actions are taken."
PHMSA’s assessment also neglects to analyze the greenhouse gas emission impacts (and other environmental impacts) of the proposed permit. EarthJustice argues that this omission is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Establishing a transportation infrastructure for LNG by rail would prolong the fossil fuel era rather than direct those investments to renewable energy resources. PHMSA did not even request data from the permit applicant on how much greenhouse gas would be emitted if the permit were granted.
Several environmental advocacy groups have strongly criticized this PHMSA action. The Sierra Club, for example, stated that, “Not only has the Trump Administration attacked safety standards meant to protect us from these incidents, now they’re actively courting disaster by proposing to move even more explosive material through our communities. Even for an Administration that has long made it clear that they want to pull out all the stops to prop up the fossil fuel industry, this proposal represents a shocking willingness to put workers and families at risk for the benefit of corporate polluters.”
Despite intense local resistance, the fossil fuel industry seems intent on establishing a route through the Columbia River Gorge to coastal ports in order to handle the dramatic increase in crude oil and gas extracted in recent years. It remains to be seen whether local groups will be able to prevent the increased transportation of fossil fuels through sensitive ecosystems and densely populated regions in the name of corporate profits. Meanwhile, another train derailment recently occurred in Saskatchewan, Canada, leaking over 1.5 million liters (400,000 gallons) of crude oil.
Analysts have commented more generally on the nation’s turn toward high-risk energy transport activities. Energy reporter Justin Mikulka recently wrote about how trains carrying volatile oil and/or LNG, nicknamed “bomb trains,” are increasingly being used, as the difficulty of obtaining permits for pipelines has increased, along with public opposition to the transport of fossil fuels.[i] Mikulka’s book argues that the U.S. and Canadian railroad regulatory systems, corrupted by industry influence, have allowed public safety risks to escalate. Under the Trump Administration, the top regulatory positions have been filled by railroad executives, and federal agencies are working to undermine protections intended to avoid another spill or catastrophe. The railroad and petroleum industries, two powerful lobbying groups, have joined forces to circumvent or rewrite regulations that stand to promote their monetary gains.
On June 24, 2019, an appropriations bill amendment addressing the issue of LNG by rail (H.Amdt.468 to H.R.3055) was approved by the House of Representatives. The amendment would prohibit the movement of LNG by rail and would block President Trump’s Executive Order. The amendment, which was introduced by Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, was not taken up in the Senate, but on September 12, DeFazio introduced the measure as a stand-alone bill, Protecting Communities from Liquefied Natural Gas Trains Act (H.R. 4306). The bill would require the Federal Railroad Administration and PHMSA “to conduct an evaluation of the safety, security, and environmental risks of transporting liquefied natural gas by rail.” The bill was referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
After reviewing the comments on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Transportation will be able to adopt its proposal. The new rules could be challenged in federal court, but during the legal challenge, unless the rules are suspended by court order, the nation’s cities and towns would be exposed to increased risks of derailments and explosions, and the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere would increase as a result of the deregulation.
Author: Richard Nunno
[i] Bomb Trains: How Industry Greed and Regulatory Failure Put the Public at Risk, Justin Mikulka, 2019, ISBN: 9781072181330
Top-Rated Climate Nonprofit – 4-Star Charity