Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Oil Train Safety Megathread. Updated July 30, 2023 [View all]mahatmakanejeeves
(60,962 posts)55. National Academy Study Touts Oil-by-Rail Safety But Supports Weakening Regulations
National Academy Study Touts Oil-by-Rail Safety But Supports Weakening Regulations
By Justin Mikulka Thursday, November 9, 2017 - 11:59
A new study by the National Academy of Sciences concludes that the rail industry should do more to improve the safety of transporting oil and ethanol by rail, which includes addressing track safety and rail tank cars. Both of these are well-known safety issues.
However, the study, Safely Transporting Hazardous Liquids and Gases in a Changing U.S. Energy Landscape, also cites a separate NAS study A Review of the Department of Transportation Plan for Analyzing and Testing Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes and notes that after reviewing available data, the researchers were unable to make a conclusive statement on the safety technology known as electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.* This is where things get interesting.
Eliminating the current regulations to require ECP brakes on oil trains beginning in 2021 has been the top priority of the rail industry and its lobbyists since the regulations were finalized in 2015. This study must have been well received in the corporate boardrooms of the rail industry.
As we have noted on DeSmog, the rail industry has already tried multiple methods of removing this regulation: pushing the Senate to do it, including new research requirements in the FAST Act of 2015, and introducing a new bill in the Senate designed to attack the regulation.
....
*Updated 11/10/17: This article initially noted that the NAS study Safely Transporting Hazardous Liquids and Gases in a Changing U.S. Energy Landscape, was unable to make a conclusive statement on ECP braking. That quote was actually referring to a separate NAS study A Review of the Department of Transportation Plan for Analyzing and Testing Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes that was unable to make a conclusive statement. We regret this error.
By Justin Mikulka Thursday, November 9, 2017 - 11:59
A new study by the National Academy of Sciences concludes that the rail industry should do more to improve the safety of transporting oil and ethanol by rail, which includes addressing track safety and rail tank cars. Both of these are well-known safety issues.
However, the study, Safely Transporting Hazardous Liquids and Gases in a Changing U.S. Energy Landscape, also cites a separate NAS study A Review of the Department of Transportation Plan for Analyzing and Testing Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes and notes that after reviewing available data, the researchers were unable to make a conclusive statement on the safety technology known as electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.* This is where things get interesting.
The committee was unable to make a conclusive statement about the emergency performance of ECP brakes relative to other braking systems on the basis of the results of testing and analysis provided by U.S. DOT.
Eliminating the current regulations to require ECP brakes on oil trains beginning in 2021 has been the top priority of the rail industry and its lobbyists since the regulations were finalized in 2015. This study must have been well received in the corporate boardrooms of the rail industry.
As we have noted on DeSmog, the rail industry has already tried multiple methods of removing this regulation: pushing the Senate to do it, including new research requirements in the FAST Act of 2015, and introducing a new bill in the Senate designed to attack the regulation.
....
*Updated 11/10/17: This article initially noted that the NAS study Safely Transporting Hazardous Liquids and Gases in a Changing U.S. Energy Landscape, was unable to make a conclusive statement on ECP braking. That quote was actually referring to a separate NAS study A Review of the Department of Transportation Plan for Analyzing and Testing Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes that was unable to make a conclusive statement. We regret this error.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The stuff was getting scattered. I was impressed by progree's analysis
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2015
#2
One year after Lynchburg train wreck, booming Bakken still fuels concerns
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2015
#12
EIA: Rail delivered 52 percent of East Coast refinery supply in February
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#14
FRA freezes on tank car sloshing; DOE oil volatility bombshell drops like a dud
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#20
Vancouver (Washington) Columbian Three-Part Series About Port Oil Terminal Deal
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#22
UW-Madison researchers hope frac-sand impact study will help railroads improve ballast maintenance
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2015
#26
Canadian Pacific asks judge not to approve Lac-Megantic derailment settlement
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2015
#29
FRA Announces Final Rule to Prevent Unattended Trains from Rolling Away
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2015
#32
Federal Railroad Administration to RRs: Notification of Crude Oil Trains to States Must Continue
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2015
#33
Officials: Broken rail missed on 2 inspections caused fiery West Va. train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2015
#34
Federal Railroad Administration Issues Final Rule to Improve Rail Flaw Detection {January 2014}
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2015
#36
Washington state transportation commission adopts crude-by-rail safety rules
mahatmakanejeeves
Feb 2016
#45
NTSB report: Broken rail likely caused 2014 Lynchburg train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2016
#46
Minnesota legislators want railroads to open books on emergency response
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2016
#47
Oil-by-rail safety concerns likely to reignite after Oregon derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
#49
2 ND rail inspectors receive certification from the Federal Railroad Administration
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2016
#51
NTSB releases dashcam videos of December 30, 2013, Casselton, North Dakota, oil train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2017
#52
Wilmington News Journal - Delaware Online: Rail safety questioned as fuel shipments likely to go up
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2017
#53
National Academy Study Touts Oil-by-Rail Safety But Supports Weakening Regulations
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2017
#55
Tar Sands Crude Shipments Quietly Increased In Oregon, With Regulators In the Dark
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2019
#66
Hazardous Materials: Washington Crude Oil By Rail-Vapor Pressure Requirements
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2019
#67
BNSF says it can handle more crude-by-rail shipments if Dakota pipeline is shut
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2021
#70
Moffat Tunnel lease could become part of fight over Uinta Basin Railway
mahatmakanejeeves
Jul 2023
#74
6 months after the East Palestine train derailment, Congress is deadlocked on new rules for safety
BumRushDaShow
Aug 2023
#76