ShareThis Page
Feds weighed national standards but let North Dakota set regulations for oil trains’ safety |

Feds weighed national standards but let North Dakota set regulations for oil trains’ safety

| Thursday, March 5, 2015 11:15 p.m

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration weighed national standards to control explosive gas in oil trains last year but rejected the move, deciding instead to leave new rules to North Dakota, where much of the fuel originates.

Current and former administration officials said they were unsure if they had the power to force the energy industry to drain volatile gas from crude oil originating in North Dakota’s fields.

Instead, they opted to back North Dakota’s effort to remove the cocktail of explosive gas — known in the industry as “light ends” — and rely on the state to contain the risk.

North Dakota’s regulations come into force next month.

The administration’s internal debate shows that concern about the risks associated with oil trains reached the upper level of the White House. But the administration balked at addressing the problem in new regulations governing crude oil trains that it is preparing to introduce this spring.

When Transportation Department and White House officials convened on this issue last summer, the administration decided to back North Dakota’s plan to limit vapor pressure — a measure just taking shape then.

“The Department of Transportation supported North Dakota on treatment of crude oil in the field,” a White House official said.

A growing number of safety advocates say relying on North Dakota is not insufficient to regulate a product that is hauled on thousands of miles of track and across many state lines.

“These trains are going all across the country, so it absolutely has to be the feds who are in charge,” said Karen Darch, mayor of Barrington, Ill., a town where several oil and ethanol trains pass through weekly.

On Thursday afternoon, a BNSF oil train delivery including more than 100 tanker cars derailed in Illinois, according to local media.

Last summer, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx took his concerns about Bakken fuel to the White House and sought advice on what to do about the danger of light ends, according to sources familiar with the meeting who were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

By then, Foxx had spent more than 12 months weighing safety measures that would prevent oil train derailments from becoming fiery disasters like the 2013 Lac Megantic tragedy in Canada in which 47 people were killed by a runaway Bakken train delivery.

The Transportation Department was warning that Bakken fuel was uncommonly volatile and explosion-prone. Foxx’s agency conceived an oil train safety plan in July with an array of measures that aimed to make sure oil train cargo moved safely on the tracks.

Tankers would have toughened shells. Oil train deliveries would slow down. Advanced braking systems would be adopted.

The rule would do nothing to limit volatile gas.

Foxx brought his concerns about the unresolved issue of dangerous gas, commonly measured as vapor pressure, and his agency’s limited power to curtail the problem to President Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough. The administration decided to let the existing oil train safety plan take root.

“Before the meeting, the department had already identified issues with the characteristics of the crude oil, including vapor pressure, and had developed potential strategies related to the overall improvement and safety of the transport of the product and how the industry could treat it,” the White House official said.

Suzanne Emmerling, spokeswoman for the Transportation Department, said, “Neither the White House or anyone in any department has ever balked at improving the safety of this product in any way.

“The department looked closely at every aspect of the transportation of flammable products by rail, including vapor pressure, tank cars and rail operations, and ultimately submitted a rule that we believe will raise the bar on the safe transport of this product.”

Emmerling declined to comment on why the Transportation Department did not include vapor pressure controls in its oil train proposal last year.

Officials may not comment on pending rules, she said, noting that the final rule may contain elements not included in the draft.

That approach is not good enough for many critics.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., warned this week that oil train “disasters” could continue “until the stability of the crude being loaded into the tank cars themselves is improved.”

Of the roughly 1.2 million barrels of crude oil produced in North Dakota daily, more than 60 percent of that fuel reaches refineries by rail, typically in 100-tanker unit trains that can stretch a mile long.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.