US Poised to Approve Shipping LNG by Rail for Export With No New Safety Rules

mikulka color
on

On Juneย 6,ย the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announcedย that the company Energy Transport Solutions LLC had applied for a special permit to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) in unit trains 100 cars long and for the express purpose of moving LNG to export facilities. The notice in the Federal Register starts aย comment period, ending July 8,ย for theย public to weigh in on the proposal, which represents a new mode for transporting LNG andย includes no new safetyย precautions.

Theย permit documentationย and environmental assessmentย from PHMSAย suggestย that federal regulatorsย โ€” instead of learning from the deadly mistakes of the essentially unregulated oil-by-rail boomย โ€” areย poised to allowย the fossil fuel and railย industriesย to repeat the same business modelย with LNG, with potentially even higher consequences for public health andย safety.

For years, the rail industry has beenย seeking approval for LNG-by-rail, and in Aprilย President Trump issued anย executive order mandating a federal ruleย allowing LNG-by-rail byย 2020.ย 

The justification for allowing unit trains of LNG is the same as forย unit trains of volatile crude oil. (Unit trains haul primarily a single commodity in trains that can stretch a mile long.)ย Just like the oil-by-rail industry sprung up to move a glut of North Dakota fracked oil, promoters of LNG-by-railย tout it as necessary due to the flood of fracked natural gasย โ€” something PHMSA notesย is expected to increase for โ€œdecades to come,โ€ according to the Department ofย Energy.ย 

Growth in U.S. LNG Exportsย Credit: U.S. Energy Informationย Administration

PHMSA asserts that transportation of LNG by rail, compared to currently moving itย by tanker truck,ย would be more cost efficient and reduce its environmental impacts. In addition, the agency claims that โ€œthe existing regulatory requirements that govern the movement of cryogenic flammable materials similar to LNG are expected to provide adequate safety measures for LNG shipped in DOT113C120W tankย cars.โ€

Cryogenicย materials are โ€œliquefied gases that are kept in their liquid state at very low temperatures,โ€ typically below -238 degrees Fahrenheit, and those which are flammable โ€œproduce a gas that can burn inย air.โ€

PHMSA: No Data on Mitigating Risks? No Safetyย Rule

PHMSAโ€™s environmental assessmentย for the permit is the document currentlyย open for review. Itย notes several (but not all) of the risks of moving a flammable material in the heaviest train cars in unit trains of 100 cars or more. Itย then dismisses all of thoseย concerns.

Train length: Moving crude oil by rail did not raise concerns until the fracking boom led companies to begin filling up trains of 100 to 150 tank cars, and those trains began derailing and exploding. As DeSmog has documented, longer trains are more likely to derail.ย No regulations exist limiting train length. While this LNG-by-rail application is for unit trains of 100 cars, no rules prevent even longer trains. In 2015, the ethanol industry indicated interest in following the lead of the oil industry and moving to these long unit trains. Most of the major derailments with ethanol have included unit trains, like the one that derailed in Texas in Aprilย and burned down a stable, killing three horses.

Train weight:ย The crude oil unit trains coincided with new regulations allowing for heavier tank cars. Some experts have expressed concerns that these unit trains are too long and too heavy, with thoseย forces leading to derailments. The proposed LNG trains wouldย have the heaviest allowed tankย cars.

Train Speed:ย After numerousย derailments and explosions involving unit trains of crude oil, the Federal Railroad Administration proposed new rulesย to slow down oil trainsย to less than 40 miles per hour (mph) near major population centers. PHMSA isย recommending a speed limit of 50 mph for LNG trains. This speed limit is not backed up by data from tests determiningย what speed the tank cars will suffer punctures in derailment scenarios but instead on the absence of such data. The agency claims that because no testing has been done, itย canโ€™t identify a threshold speed that would beย safe:

โ€œThe risk of puncture increases with speed; but there are no test data or computer models that could be used to predict the probability of puncture at any particular speed, or identify a threshold speed at which the probability of puncture of the inner tank becomesย high.โ€

Instead, the regulators note that the Association of American Railroads, the industry’s main lobbying group, recommends limiting the speed of trains carrying certain amounts of hazardous materials to 50ย mph.

Emergency Response:ย At a 2015 conference on oil by rail, noted rail safety expert Fred Millar told the audience that emergency response for oil train accidents was โ€œa distraction from what we have to do.โ€ Despite industry public relations events about training first responders to deal with oil train disasters, the typical response in actual events is toย evacuate anyone in the blast zone and let the trains burn out, which often takesย days.

PHMSA admits that this is the only option for dealing with a burning LNG tank car.ย โ€œResponse and mitigation techniques beyond evacuation for breaches in cryogenic tank cars do not exist or are impractical during a derailmentย scenario.โ€

BLEVE Events:ย The nightmare scenario for an LNG rail accident is a BLEVE event, or Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion. This is when a fire engulfs full tank cars and heats them to the point theyย explode.

PHMSAย explains away this issue: โ€œNo test data or mathematical models exist to predict whether and when an LNG tank car exposed to an external fire would undergo a BLEVE.โ€ No data, no problem seems to be the approach to safety at PHMSA. Meanwhile, examples of such tests for other materials and tanks are easily found on YouTube, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency andย National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have developed software that models BLEVEs.

Exposure: One thing PHMSA does definitively state is thatย โ€œexposure to heat from an LNG pool fire or ignition of LNG vapors could result in fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage for those within the limited zone of hazard.โ€ย ย 

In more straightforward terms, the โ€œlimited zone of hazardโ€ isย a blastย zone.ย 

Railroad Rules Are Written inย Blood

There is a saying over a century old that says,ย โ€œRailroad rules have been written in blood.โ€ In other words, the rail industry operates unchecked by safety rules until enough people die to warrant regulation. While that saying has been true in the past, after 47 people died in the Quebec town of Lac-Mรฉgantic’s oil train disaster, the regulations that followed failed to address the heart of oil train safety risks. Furthermore, the one meaningful safety regulation โ€” requiring modern brakes on oil train โ€” passed in the wake of this disasterย was repealed by the Trump administration at the end ofย 2017.

In May the Trump administration withdrew another proposed safety regulation that would require two-person crews on freight trains. The document outlining the proposed rule’sย withdrawalย explicitly states a shift for railย regulators. Instead ofย writing mandatory rules governing safety,ย the Department of Transportation, which includes PHMSA, is taking an attitudeย that is quite the opposite.ย ย 

โ€œDOTโ€™s approach to achieving safety improvements begins with a focus on removing unnecessary barriers and issuing voluntary guidance, rather than regulations that could stifleย innovation.โ€

Under Trump, deregulation is the rule, and safety measures are voluntary. If past is prologue and the federal government approvesย unit trains of LNG, expect the same scenes as with oil trains: flames, explosions, andย deaths.

And allย in the name ofย exporting frackedย gas to the highest bidderย abroad.

The public comment period ends Julyย 8.

Main Image: LNG.ย Credit: Jens Schott Knudsen,ย CC BYNCย 2.0

mikulka color
Justin Mikulka is a research fellow at New Consensus. Prior to joining New Consensus in October 2021, Justin reported for DeSmog, where he began in 2014. Justin has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.

Related Posts

on

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.

Victoria Hewson called the 2050 ambition a โ€œhuge own goalโ€ while working for a Tufton Street think tank.
on

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.

Ahead of a city council vote, Resource Works launched an influence campaign with stock submissions for restaurant owners, hospitality workers, and residents.
on

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.

Ahead of the November 29 election, dairy producers tell Irish government to step off the โ€œtreadmillโ€ of unsustainable milk production โ€“ and share a more holistic vision.
on

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is โ€œnot the demon molecule, itโ€™s the miracle molecule.โ€