‘A’ or ‘B’ end of the LNG tank car? I doubt that those who oppose shipping LNG by rail even know the difference.
Skip Elliott
Served as the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Acting Inspector General for U.S. DOT preceded by a 40-year career at one of the nation's largest freight railroads.
By Skip Elliott
Citing flawed safety assessments, a group of 14 state attorneys general (AGs) recently issued comments in support of indefinitely halting movements of liquified natural gas (LNG) by rail.[1] This follows the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) suspension in November of last year of its own previously issued rule allowing for shipments of LNG by rail. In its decision, PHMSA expressed concerns about public and environmental safety.
So, why do I care?
My career in the U.S. freight rail industry spanned five decades, most of which focused on employee and public safety, hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation safety, and protection of the environment. After retiring in 2017, I was honored to then be unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Administrator of PHMSA. I had the pleasure of working with a group of tremendously dedicated professionals responsible for overseeing the safety of 1.2 million daily shipments of hazmat by all modes of transportation, as well as the nation’s 2.8-million-mile pipeline network.
This unique perspective of having worked both in the freight rail industry and the federal agency responsible for hazmat transportation safety allows me to clearly see just how flawed most arguments against moving LNG by rail are. Let us face the facts here. The objections made by the AGs and most others opposed to LNG by rail are not really about rail safety at all. Their focus and intent are to eradicate the production of fossil fuels by eliminating ways to transport them. The “unsafe by rail” argument is just an easy (and tired-out) way to camouflage a political motive.
To claim a concern about railroad safety is absurd, and the facts prove it. Freight railroads in the United States move hundreds of thousands of loaded tank cars each year containing hundreds of different commodities regulated as hazmat by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).[2] These products, many of them essential to our daily way of life, cover all types of hazards, including explosives, oxidizers, poisons, and flammable liquids, solids, and gases. Unquestionably, the nation’s railroads have dedicated themselves to diligently following DOT safety regulations with each hazmat rail car they transport. ?
FACT:?More than 99.99% of all hazmat moved by rail reaches its destination without a release.[3]
?
Given American railroads’ long track record of safety, this should not come as a surprise. Railroads in the United States have been moving products considered hazardous for more than 150 years. They have been moving flammable, non-flammable, refrigerated, and poisonous compressed gases—some which are similar to LNG—for more than 80 years. Furthermore, the railroad industry, tank car builders, chemical and petroleum producers, and the federal government (most notably PHMSA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and National Transportation Safety Board) work continually to improve tank car safety.
FACT: A team of dedicated subject matter experts from PHMSA and FRA spent thousands of person-hours developing a new rulemaking and designing an enhanced tank car to transport LNG by rail. SAFETY was always at the forefront of their work.
领英推荐
How do I know this? Because I was there working with them.
A few months ago, I wrote a post about my time as PHMSA Administrator and how honored I was to work with the resolute safety professionals at FRA and PHMSA on the design of an improved railroad tank car to transport LNG. That effort brought together an impressive cross-functional team with proven experience and deep knowledge in rail operations, tank car construction, and the physical properties of LNG. The result was yet another step forward in the ongoing evolution of tank car safety in the form of a tank car ideally suited to transport LNG. Kudos to the engineering staff at FRA, who conducted full-scale tank car impact tests to prove the tank car’s efficacy at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. Again, facts do not lie: this is an incredibly strong and safe tank car standard that requires, among other safety features, a thicker normalized steel outer shell providing even greater puncture resistance.[4] To allege a flawed safety assessment by this deeply knowledgeable joint government agency team is ludicrous.
FACT: Those who oppose the transportation of LNG by rail are out of their league if they try to challenge the laudable safety record of the U.S. freight rail industry and/or the tremendous knowledge, experience, and unwavering commitment to safety displayed by the team of federal employees at PHMSA and FRA who worked tirelessly on the LNG by rail rule.
During my 40-years in the freight rail industry I was taught to be fact based. Accordingly, it is difficult for me to sit idly by and tolerate the hyperbole being slung by those that do not even know the difference between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ end of a railroad tank car. (No doubt they will scramble to find out after reading this). I am also sure that they have not spent the time to learn the true facts behind the U.S. freight rail industry’s highly commendable and proven safety record nor the dedication and commitment to safety by the FRA and PHMSA public servants who developed the LNG by rail rule and designed a tank car of unquestionable safety design.
But in the current environment, it is not about facts.
Regarding PHMSA’s decision to suspend its own LNG by rail rulemaking, it is clear to me that it was done at the direction of the current administration for political reasons and was certainly not based on facts or reason. The current administration seems determined to put a choke hold on the transportation of fossil fuel energy products. (Remember the Keystone XL pipeline?) Not only is this a misguided crusade against logic and fact, but it is also an unfair and inexcusable insult to the many hardworking employees at PHMSA and the FRA who spent countless hours developing the LNG by rail rule with safety always at the forefront of their work.
If there must be opposition to moving LNG by rail in the United States, those stating their case should be upfront about their real motivations. If their opposition is based on an inherent anti-fossil fuel position, so be it. Their transparency would at least allow the public to engage the issue on its merits. (Frankly, I think the energy supply problem faced by northeastern U.S. states [5]—which sometimes receive their LNG by ship from Russia [6]—would make the current administration’s case quite difficult to make.) But they should not try to conjure up support by using scare tactics and making statements that simply are not true. The safety record of the U.S. freight rail industry and the thoughtful and sound work of many career employees at FRA and PHMSA should not be unjustly challenged or slandered.
Skip Elliott served as the fifth administrator of the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and as Acting Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 2017 to 2021. Prior to his time in federal public service, Skip had a distinguished career at one of the nation’s largest freight railroads.
[2] https://railroads.dot.gov/program-areas/hazmat-transportation/hazardous-materials-transportation
General Director Hazardous Materials Safety at BNSF Railway
3 年Skip - thank you! 100% on target!!!
Founder, President and CEO at Food by Rail Logistics Holdings, Inc.
3 年Are these cars running in manifest service, or their own dedicated train?
--My posts, opinions and comments are my own and do not represent my employer in any way.
3 年... spot on Skip and our TRANSCAER LNG Training Cars are ready to roll as well!!
Well said, good read.