New US tank car rules draw industry ire

OREANDA-NEWS. Railroads and petroleum shippers are not pleased with new federal rules for the handling of tank cars moving crude, ethanol and other flammable hazardous materials, particularly new braking requirements and the deadline for compliance.

Association of American Railroads chief executive Ed Hamberger took issue with new requirements for electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on tank cars carrying flammable liquids, saying regulators have no substantial evidence proving mandatory ECP brakes will reduce accidents. He called the decision "imprudent" and that the agency pushed ahead without the necessary analysis.

The alternative to using the advanced braking system is to operate the trains at 30mph, which Hamberger said would impact all rail shippers.

"This decision not only threatens the operational management of the US rail system, but trains moving at 30 mph will compromise network capacity by at least 30 percent," he said. "The far-reaching effects of this decision will be felt by freight and passenger customers alike. Slow-moving trains will back up the entire rail system."

Refining group the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) called the aggressive retrofit schedule for the existing tank car fleet unrealistic and warned it could disrupt crude transportation in the US. Any car produced after 1 October 2015 will have to have 9/16th of an inch shells, extra protections for valves and other top fittings, full-height head shields on both ends, exterior jackets and thermal protection for the shell and a new bottom outlet valve.

"Now that tank car specifications have been addressed, AFPM suggests that it is long overdue for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to show similar concern for the root causes of train derailments: track integrity and human error. Keeping the trains on the tracks should be of the highest priority for DOT. The best way to mitigate an incident is to prevent it from happening," the group said.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) said the regulations should be carefully examined to ensure each element improves rail safety. API also highlighted the need to prevent derailments, and criticized the requirement for ECP brakes as adding to "the artificial constraints" created by an unrealistic retrofit timeline.

"The safety impact of ECP brakes is marginal at best," API chief executive Jack Gerard said. "We support upgrades to the tank car fleet and want them completed as quickly as realistically possible. The railcar manufacturing industry's own calculations show it does not have the shop capacity to meet the retrofit timeline announced today, which will lead to shortages that impact consumers and the broader economy."

Railway Supply Institute president Tom Simpson said his association that represents tank car manufacturers and shops is concerned about the ECP brake requirement, but that the retrofit timeline for modifying existing tank cars "is aggressive, but appropriate. It will be a challenge to meet these obligations."

Politicians were largely supportive of the new regulations for tank cars, with senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota) saying the new rules were "a needed and important step" toward increasing the safety of crude trains.

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania) and Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee head John Thune (R-South Dakota) described the tank car standards as a sensible approach that will lead to "substantial safety benefits." But they shared reservations about the impact of the speed limit on system capacity and the effect of that decision on other carriers' freight.

"We look forward to working with secretary Foxx and other colleagues as we fully evaluate these new policies," the senators said in a joint statement.

Acting federal railroad administrator Sarah Feinberg said the rule has sufficient timelines and flexibility, but she acknowledged the expense and logistical challenges it presents.

But it was "not a goal of making this inexpensive or convenient for industry," Feinberg said. There was extensive cost-benefit analysis and a large team working on the rule for more than two years.