Trump Admin Proposes New Rule to Allow Shipping Flammable LNG by Rail

mikulka color
on

President Trump has made clear that he wants to move the nation’s glut of fracked natural gasย onto trains and then to ships for saleย abroad.

In response to Trump’s April executive order pushing federal agencies to make that happen, the Department of Transportation (DOT) on October 18ย announced a proposed ruleย for what it calls the โ€œsafe transportation of liquefied natural gas [LNG] by rail tankย car.โ€

However, the proposed rule does not include any new safety regulations or require any safety testing for moving large quantities of this flammable cargo. Instead, the rule, coming fromย the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), would allow the rail industry to move LNGย in rail tank cars, labeledย DOT-113,ย currently used to ship small quantities of other flammable gasesย super-cooled into liquidย form.ย 

While the DOT press release announcing the rulemaking emphasizes safety (the word or a variant is repeated no fewer than eight times),ย the actual document proposing this new rule details a worrisomeย scenario for what could happen if a train of LNG tank cars derails, breaching and releasing the liquefied fossil fuelย โ€” what PHMSAย calls โ€œScenarioย 3โ€:

โ€œAlthough Scenario 3 has a low probability, a breached inner tank during a transportation accident could have a high consequence because of the higher probability of a fire due to the formation of a flammable gas vapor/air mixture in the immediate vicinity of the spilled LNG. This probability is based on the likelihood of ignition sources (sparks, hot surfaces, etc.) being generated by other equipment, rail cars, or vehicles involved in a transportation accident that could ignite a flammable vaporย cloud.โ€

According to PHMSA, the derailment of a train full of LNG could have โ€œhigh consequencesโ€ย โ€” as in, a major fire or explosionย โ€”ย butย because the agency says there are lower odds that it would happen, the public should feelย assured this proposed transportation mode, using DOT-113 rail tank cars, isย safe.

In the proposed rule, PHMSA also acknowledges that such โ€œrareโ€ accidents with DOT-113 tank cars can release large quantities of their cargo, which in this case would be natural gas, aย flammableย fuel.

โ€œThough rare, derailments involving DOT-113 tank cars can result in large quantities of hazardous materials released, which can result from venting or breach of the inner tankย shell.โ€

Lac-Megantic oil train explosion
Train burning in Lac-Mรฉgantic, Quebec, in 2013.ย Credit:ย Transportation Safety Board of Canada,ย viaย CCย BYNCNDย 2.0

A low-probability but high-consequence accident involving trains loaded with flammable liquidsย sounds a lotย like the 2013 rail accident involving an oil train that derailed and exploded, killing 47 people in Lac-Mรฉgantic, Quebec. While numerous oil trains have derailed,ย resulting in large fires, explosions, and oil spills over the past decade, a high-fatalities accidentย like the one in Lac-Mรฉgantic has only happened once so far โ€” but the consequences were, as PHMSA would putย it,ย โ€œhigh.โ€

โ€œSafety is the number one priority of PHMSA,โ€ย PHMSA Administrator Skip Elliott, who is also aย former CSX rail executive, said in theย press release announcing the new LNG-by-rail rule.

There is a 60 day public comment period for this proposed rule that ends on December 23,ย 2019.ย 

PHMSAโ€™s Misleading Conclusion on Safety of DOT-113 Tankย Cars

In the proposed rule, PHMSA asserts, โ€œThe hazards of transporting LNG are no different than that of flammable cryogenic liquids already authorized for bulk rail transport.โ€ Cryogenic materials are โ€œliquefied gases that are kept in their liquid state at very low temperatures,โ€ typically below -238 degreesย Fahrenheit.ย ย 

However, PHMSA then cites a supporting documentย that in no way backs up that claim but instead discussesย using LNG as a fuel source for locomotives, which is distinct from trains transportingย tank cars full of LNG.ย ย 

The real issue โ€” which PHMSA admits in other parts of the document โ€” is that should LNGย by rail be approved, the industry will likely be moving large volumes of the hazardous materialย because the U.S. is awash in natural gas produced by fracking. With low domestic prices for natural gas, the oil and gas industry is desperate to move thatย oversupply to ports for export. PHMSA cites LNG export multiple timesย as a reason why approving LNG by rail isย necessary.

The proposed ruleย states:

โ€œWhile PHMSA expects LNG will initially move in smaller quantities (i.e., a few tank cars) as part of manifest trains, it is uncertain whether LNG will continue to be transported in those quantities or if LNG by rail will shift to be transported using a unit train model of service, and if so, how quickly that shift willย occur.โ€

Unit trains are long trains of a single product,ย such as crude oil or ethanol,ย often of a 100 cars or more. The other cryogenic liquids being moved by rail are not moved in large quantities in unitย trains.

But industry has already expressed interest in moving in that direction. As DeSmog reported in June, Energy Transport Solutions LLCย currently has a special permit application pending that would allow the companyย to transport LNGย โ€œin unit trains 100 cars long and for the express purpose of moving LNG to exportย facilities.โ€

LNG protest in Washington State
Puget Sound Energy LNG Protest in Washington state. Credit: Seattle City Council,ย CC BYNCNDย 2.0

Another potential issue is the number of rail tank cars available to meet the expected demand, and what the past history based on that small number can say about future scenarios.ย PHMSA does note that if this proposed rule is approved, โ€œthe numbers of DOT-113 tank cars in operation under the proposed regulatory change could increase well beyond the numbers of DOT-113 tank cars currently inย operation.โ€

However, there is no viable business model for moving only small amounts of LNG.

Rail safety expert Fred Millar critiqued PHMSA for basing its conclusionย that shipping large amounts of LNG in DOT-113 tank cars is safe on the small sample sizeย currentlyย inย use.

โ€œPHMSA pretends to do a hazard assessment of the proposed LNG by rail, and to judge the DOT-113 cryogenics rail tank car safe enough for proposed LNG transport,โ€œ Millar told DeSmog via email. โ€œBut they neglect to say how tiny the historical experience is with this tank car, some 15,000 total flammable cargoes perย year.โ€

To put that in perspective, in 2008,ย 9,500 carloads of crude oil moved by rail in the U.S. And there were no major accidents and explosions in 2009 involving oil trains. But by 2014,ย nearly 500,000 carloads of crude oil moved by rail in unit trains, a year marked byย several major accidents and explosions.ย ย 

The high consequence outcomes that PHMSA calls low probability become much more likely at high volumes, with the prospect of trains 100 cars long carrying LNG.

LNG by Rail Likely More Dangerous Than Oil ‘Bombย Trains’

For the last fiveย years,ย DeSmog has covered the many accidents involving trains of crude oil,ย in the process documentingย the very real risks of these trains and the ways proper regulationย could avoid or reduce those risks. However, crude oil is likely less of a danger than LNG when it comes to the physical properties of the twoย materials.

In early 2017 when DeSmog first highlightedย rail industry efforts to approveย LNG by rail, we laid out the potentialย risks:

โ€œIn 2014 there was an explosion at an LNG facility in Washington state. Risks of a second larger explosion resulted in authorities evacuating everyone within a two mile radius. Reuters reported, ‘A county fire department spokesman said authorities were concerned a second blast could level a 0.75 mile ‘lethal zone’ around theย plant.’โ€

With oil trains, safety officialsย recommendย evacuatingย everyone within a half mile of the tracks โ€” an area known as a blast zone, not a โ€œlethal zone.โ€ The potential scale of damage of an LNG accident could be far greater than an oilย train.ย 

Nevertheless, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administrationย proposedย no new safety regulations to ensure the lessons of oil trains are applied to LNG by railย โ€” not limiting train length, not requiring modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, not instilling new speed limits in populated areas. But then again,ย the Federal Railroad Administration in the Trump era has specifically said its purpose is to remove regulations and let the railroads volunteer to improveย safety.

Fred Millar accurately summed up what is happening, telling DeSmog, โ€œThis PHMSA/FRA rulemaking is evidence of Big Oil/Gas hurriedly queuing up while the Trump Bank Window for Regulatory Withdrawals is obviously Wide Open forย Business.โ€

Or to put it more simply:ย profitsย first.

Main image:ย President Donaldย Trump delivers remarks on promoting energy infrastructure and economic growth May 14, 2019ย at the Cameron LNG Export Terminal in Hackberry, Louisiana. Credit: White House/Shealah Craighead, public domain ย 

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

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€
on

Reformโ€™s deputy leader represents a high climate risk constituency while calling CO2 โ€œplant foodโ€.

Reformโ€™s deputy leader represents a high climate risk constituency while calling CO2 โ€œplant foodโ€.