Ethanol rail safety

Oct. 20, 2014
Ethanol producers argue vast differences exist between the potential safety hazards posed by rail shipments of ethanol and the safety hazards posed by rail shipments of crude oil, and they dispute findings of a federal study comparing the two.

Ethanol producers argue vast differences exist between the potential safety hazards posed by rail shipments of ethanol and the safety hazards posed by rail shipments of crude oil, and they dispute findings of a federal study comparing the two.

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), an ethanol trade group, filed a 13-page comment with the US Department of Transportation regarding proposed rules on tank railcar standards and high-hazard flammable trains (HHFT).

The proposed HHFT category would apply to a train with 20 or more tank cars carrying crude oil, ethanol, or other flammable liquids. Trains classified as HHFT would be subject to lower speed limits, routing risk assessments, and enhanced tank car designs.

RFA Pres. and CEO Bob Dinneen said regulators should focus on preventing the frequency of derailments. He suggests transportation officials could improve protocols for inspections and track-maintenance along with requiring more oversight of train movements.

"The major causes of incidents are substandard track integrity, switching failures, inspection errors, maintenance problems, or lack of communication between train crews," he said, advocating initiatives that address "root causes" of derailments.

Although some derailments have involved cars carrying ethanol, Dinneen said ethanol is less volatile than crude oil, particularly crude from the Bakken play. Since August 2012, only 4 cars carrying ethanol have derailed, he said.

"In contrast, crude oil has had 55 cars derail in 10 incidents not including the tragedy of Lac-Megantic, Quebec," Dinneen said. In 2013, more than 60 cars carrying oil from the Bakken derailed in Lac-Megantic, killing 47 people (OGJ Online, July 8, 2013).

Stranded ethanol possible

Under DOT's proposals, Dinneen said it's unclear what operations will be required for single cars of ethanol or other flammables.

"One major concern arising as a result of this rule is that possibility of rail operations stranding ethanol tank cars while attempting to find trains with fewer than 19 other flammable tank cars," Dinneen said. He noted ethanol and grain shippers already face "persistent congestion on the rails due to the continued increasing shipments of crude oil by rail."

Rail safety concerns largely stem from unit trains, which typically involve 65 cars or more carrying a single commodity, Dinneen said. He suggests the HHFT category specify unit trains. "Another possible suggestion is to restrict the upgrades to cars traveling in a manifested block of 20 cars traveling together to the same destination, not 20 cars dispersed throughout the train," he said.

RFA also disputed the findings of a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) analysis of damage to tank cars containing denatured alcohol compared with damage to tank cars containing crude oil.

Further questions

Dinneen said the analysis "sensationalized contrasts between ethanol and crude oil" and "appears to be a subjective, nontechnical" comparison that shouldn't be considered by rail safety policymakers.

The Office of Safety within the FRA examined 16 rail accidents going back to 2006 involving DOT-111 tank cars, which transport flammables.

The agency examined two types of damage: thermal tears that can release liquid and vapor causing a fireball and separations of the tank shell resulting in shrapnel. A resulting white paper concluded crude oil and ethanol were almost equally likely to cause thermal tears but that separations only happened in cars containing ethanol.

Dinneen said the ethanol industry holds transportation safety as a top priority, and that RFA is an active member of the American Association of Railroads Tank Car Committee and among organizers of the Ethanol Emergency Response Coalition, a voluntary industry-government group.