The USDOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Safety Alert on January 2, 2014 following recent crude oil fires from train accidents where Bakken crude oil was involved. The Safety Alert is attached here. The Agency states that initial tests from the recent North Dakota accident involving two BSNF trains, and Lac Megantic Quebec in June 2013, indicate Bakken crude "may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil."
Yesterday's Safety Alert also encompasses the ongoing "Operation Classification" effort of PHMSA and the FRA, where the agencies have been conducting unannounced field tests to verify proper classification of crude oil shipments. In particular, the Agencies are concentrating on "Packing Group" classifications of shipments; i.e. does the chemical composition of the oil actually in a tank car reflect the packing group classification (and placard) on the car. Packing Groups are the defined classes of hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), which classify a material's flashpoint and boiling point, among other things.
PHMSA states that as "Operation Classification" is an on-going effort, it will share its sampling results of Bakken crude and oil from other locations. However, PHMSA reminds the offerors of crude oil that they should not delay their own testing (and classification under 49 CFR 173.22) of oil shipped while PHMSA's effort is underway.
Showing posts with label Hazardous Materials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hazardous Materials. Show all posts
Friday, January 3, 2014
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
2013 Year in Review from Transportation Law Today
2013 will likely be remembered for several significant transportation events, including the Lac Megantic and Metro North rail accidents. As I write today on New Year's Eve an active fire from a train crash and derailment involving crude oil is taking place in Casselton, North Dakota (here is the NTSB's initial press release). The event in South Dakota highlights other major trends from 2013: positive train control and the carriage of crude oil by rail. Finally, a review of 2013 would not be complete without a mention of the regulatory and political environment, significantly because some-what bi-partisan WRRDA bill (which many had great hopes of passage in 2013), will wait until 2014.
MAJOR RAIL ACCIDENTS
The June 2013 accident which destroyed a significant portion of the town of Lac Megantic, Quebec, and claimed over 40 lives, spurred quick action by Canada's rail regulator, and reciprocal action by the FRA. My prior posts explained some of those actions here, and here.
Following Lac Megantic efforts were made to address the classification of crude oil carried by rail, which may again gain more attention given the on-going situation in North Dakota. Crew size was another issue in Lac Megantic, which the regulators also addressed in the context of securing haz mat trains.
The December 1 Metro-North accident in New York city also raised crew size questions, as well as positive train control implementation. See my prior post here.
Although neither the Lac Megantic nor Metro-North accidents have had their investigations concluded, information released indicates likely causes: failure to secure the train on a grade (Lac Megantic), and crew error in Metro-North. Coming in 2014 will be the Rail Safety Advisory Committee recommendations following Lac Megantic, and possibly, action on the Commuter Rail Passenger Safety Act proposed shortly after the Metro-North accident.
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
The state of Positive Train Control, and the current 2015 deadline for implementation, will continue to be a hot topic in the coming year. Even though the GAO acknowledged that many railroads could not meet the 2015 deadline, it seems unlikely any wholesale moving of the deadline will occur given recent high profile train accidents. My best prediction is that some case by case relief for portions of PTC systems or tracks may be granted in an effort to get operational as much as possible by 2015.
CRUDE BY RAIL
I expect growing regulatory and public attention to crude by rail shipments, again highlighted by what is currently happening in North Dakota. Crude by Rail, as with Haz Mat by rail, is clearly a safe mode of transport given the huge volumes moved without incident. However, when accidents occur they tend to be memorable given the product being moved. On-going efforts from the RSAC on operational issues, as well as a renewed focus on tank car safety standards will certainly continue.
WRRDA I HARDLY KNEW YA
Now to the blue and brown water worlds... the continuing fate of the now-termed WRRDA bill and its path through a divided congress will continue into 2014. The bill's remedy for the monumentally over-budget Olmstead Lock and Dam project, aka the "Kentucky Kickback" seems to have survived some initial hype when the deal emerged as part of the government shut-down end. Both houses of Congress have appointed conferees to iron out differences between the Senate bill passed in May 2013, and the later house bill.
Is WRRDA an example of a deeply divided congress prioritizing infrastructure investment? Perhaps, but it also may be low hanging fruit in the sense that WRRDA is what could be accomplished in a bi-partisan way with relatively little controversy. In any event, the bill has yet to be passed by congress, which is likely to happen in early 2014.
Thanks to our readers and best wishes to all for safe and joyful New Year in 2014.
- Paul J. Loftus, December 31, 2013
MAJOR RAIL ACCIDENTS
The June 2013 accident which destroyed a significant portion of the town of Lac Megantic, Quebec, and claimed over 40 lives, spurred quick action by Canada's rail regulator, and reciprocal action by the FRA. My prior posts explained some of those actions here, and here.
Following Lac Megantic efforts were made to address the classification of crude oil carried by rail, which may again gain more attention given the on-going situation in North Dakota. Crew size was another issue in Lac Megantic, which the regulators also addressed in the context of securing haz mat trains.
The December 1 Metro-North accident in New York city also raised crew size questions, as well as positive train control implementation. See my prior post here.
Although neither the Lac Megantic nor Metro-North accidents have had their investigations concluded, information released indicates likely causes: failure to secure the train on a grade (Lac Megantic), and crew error in Metro-North. Coming in 2014 will be the Rail Safety Advisory Committee recommendations following Lac Megantic, and possibly, action on the Commuter Rail Passenger Safety Act proposed shortly after the Metro-North accident.
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
The state of Positive Train Control, and the current 2015 deadline for implementation, will continue to be a hot topic in the coming year. Even though the GAO acknowledged that many railroads could not meet the 2015 deadline, it seems unlikely any wholesale moving of the deadline will occur given recent high profile train accidents. My best prediction is that some case by case relief for portions of PTC systems or tracks may be granted in an effort to get operational as much as possible by 2015.
CRUDE BY RAIL
I expect growing regulatory and public attention to crude by rail shipments, again highlighted by what is currently happening in North Dakota. Crude by Rail, as with Haz Mat by rail, is clearly a safe mode of transport given the huge volumes moved without incident. However, when accidents occur they tend to be memorable given the product being moved. On-going efforts from the RSAC on operational issues, as well as a renewed focus on tank car safety standards will certainly continue.
WRRDA I HARDLY KNEW YA
Now to the blue and brown water worlds... the continuing fate of the now-termed WRRDA bill and its path through a divided congress will continue into 2014. The bill's remedy for the monumentally over-budget Olmstead Lock and Dam project, aka the "Kentucky Kickback" seems to have survived some initial hype when the deal emerged as part of the government shut-down end. Both houses of Congress have appointed conferees to iron out differences between the Senate bill passed in May 2013, and the later house bill.
Is WRRDA an example of a deeply divided congress prioritizing infrastructure investment? Perhaps, but it also may be low hanging fruit in the sense that WRRDA is what could be accomplished in a bi-partisan way with relatively little controversy. In any event, the bill has yet to be passed by congress, which is likely to happen in early 2014.
Thanks to our readers and best wishes to all for safe and joyful New Year in 2014.
- Paul J. Loftus, December 31, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Joint Rule Requires Truck Clearance At Grade Crossings
The USDOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have jointly issued a final rule that prohibits truck drivers carrying certain hazardous materials "from entering onto a highway-rail grade crossing unless there is sufficient space to drive completely through the grade crossing without stopping." The rule was published yesterday, and takes effect on October 25, 2013.
The intent of the rule is of course to reduce highway-rail grade crossing crashes, and amends 49 CFR parts 177 and 392, specifically a revision to 49 CFR 177.804, and the creation of 49 CFR 392.12.
The new requirements apply to vehicles transporting a quantify of hazardous materials requiring placarding under 49 CFR 172, or any amount of a material listed as a toxin under 42 CFR 73.
The intent of the rule is of course to reduce highway-rail grade crossing crashes, and amends 49 CFR parts 177 and 392, specifically a revision to 49 CFR 177.804, and the creation of 49 CFR 392.12.
The new requirements apply to vehicles transporting a quantify of hazardous materials requiring placarding under 49 CFR 172, or any amount of a material listed as a toxin under 42 CFR 73.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Rail Safety Advisory Committee Holds Emergency Meeting on Haz Mat
Yesterday, the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), met to consider additional regulatory or other safety measures in response to the Lac-Megantic, Quebec incident in June. The emergency meeting follows the issuance of an Emergency Order and Safety Advisory on August 2, 2013 - see here for my prior post on those issues, and links to the Order and Safety Advisory.
The attached press release from the FRA states the RSAC has accepted four tasks: appropriate crew size, requirements for securing trains, operational testing of employees to ensure compliance with rules, and issues relating to the operational control and handling of hazardous materials in transportation. The RSAC will now establish working groups to address the tasks which will propose recommendations to FRA in April 2014.
The attached press release from the FRA states the RSAC has accepted four tasks: appropriate crew size, requirements for securing trains, operational testing of employees to ensure compliance with rules, and issues relating to the operational control and handling of hazardous materials in transportation. The RSAC will now establish working groups to address the tasks which will propose recommendations to FRA in April 2014.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
FRA Follows Suit with Emergency Order on Haz Mat Train Operations
Following the emergency rules issued by Transport Canada ( see my 7/30/13 post here ) the FRA issued an Emergency Order on Friday with similar requirements.
The FRA Emergency Order and Safety Advisory calling for as yet to be scheduled Rail Safety Advisory Committee meeting, are effective immediately and are in direct response to the Lac Megantic disaster in Quebec. Though the FRA Order notes that neither Transport Canada nor the Canadian Transportation Safety Board has determined a cause of the Lac Megantic derailment, the FRA Order clearly focuses on the securement of unattended trains. The FRA Order prohibits haz mat trains from being left unattended outside of yards or terminals unless authorized, and requires communication between train crews and dispatchers about how trains are secured (including tonnage and number of hand brakes applied) if a train is left unattended.
The FRA Order also requires railroads to have qualified employees inspect rail equipment which emergency responders have been on before leaving a train unattended, which is a nod toward the theory that actions of firefighters had some role in the Lac Megantic breakaway train. Prior to the train rolling away, a fire in a locomotive had been extinguished by local authorities.
Unlike the Canadian emergency rule, the FRA Order does not immediately mandate minimum 2 man crews on haz mat trains, rather, the Safety Advisory notes that crew size will be a task discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the RSAC.
The FRA Emergency Order and Safety Advisory calling for as yet to be scheduled Rail Safety Advisory Committee meeting, are effective immediately and are in direct response to the Lac Megantic disaster in Quebec. Though the FRA Order notes that neither Transport Canada nor the Canadian Transportation Safety Board has determined a cause of the Lac Megantic derailment, the FRA Order clearly focuses on the securement of unattended trains. The FRA Order prohibits haz mat trains from being left unattended outside of yards or terminals unless authorized, and requires communication between train crews and dispatchers about how trains are secured (including tonnage and number of hand brakes applied) if a train is left unattended.
The FRA Order also requires railroads to have qualified employees inspect rail equipment which emergency responders have been on before leaving a train unattended, which is a nod toward the theory that actions of firefighters had some role in the Lac Megantic breakaway train. Prior to the train rolling away, a fire in a locomotive had been extinguished by local authorities.
Unlike the Canadian emergency rule, the FRA Order does not immediately mandate minimum 2 man crews on haz mat trains, rather, the Safety Advisory notes that crew size will be a task discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the RSAC.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Transport Canada Prohibits One-Person Crews on Haz Mat Trains
In response to the derailment and subsequent disaster in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada's Transportation regulatory agency, Transport Canada, has issued 6 Emergency Directives.
Among the new emergency rules are requirements that all unattended controlling locomotives on main tracks and sidings have their cabs protected from unauthorized access, and that railroads ensure handbrake rules under the Canadian Rail Operating Rules are complied with when a locomotive attached to one or more cars is left unattended for more than an hour. The Directive also prohibits locomotives coupled to cars carrying "dangerous goods" (i.e. Canada's term for hazardous materials) from being left unattended on a main track. Regarding crew size, every locomotive coupled to one or more haz mat cars transporting dangerous goods, must be operated by no fewer than two qualified crew members.
Here is a link to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board's "active investigation" page about the incident.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
PHMSA Rules Tort Claim for Haz Mat Package Warning Preempted
The USDOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a ruling, published in today's Federal Register, which preempts a common law tort action for design, manufacture and marking (including warnings) for a haz mat package.
The underlying event was the explosion of a DOT specification 39 cylinder, which exploded in January 2003 when placed in 180 deg. water. The explosion killed Kenneth Elder, whose survivors brought a product liability action against the cylinder manufacturer.
PHMSA's ruling came after the manufacturer petitioned the agency to make a preemption ruling on the underlying tort claims. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act gives the agency authority to make such rulings, under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d).
Under the HMTA, claims relating to design, manufacture and labeling are preempted if the "non-federal requirement (i.e. a lawsuit seeking to impose an additional warning) is not "substantively the same" as federal regulation under the haz mat act. This is a somewhat different standard than preemption under the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) - 49 U.S.C. 20106 - which permits more stringent state regulation covering the same subject matter as federal rail regulations if the state regulation is meant to address a local safety hazard and does not burden interstate commerce.
PHMSA determined that any "state requirement, including a State's common law" which is not substantively the same as the federal regulations on the design, manufacturing, or marking of a haz mat package is preempted, and thus, the underlying claim that Mr. Elder's death was a result of an improper design, marking, or warning of the cylinder was preempted. PHMSA did emphasize, however, that the HMTA preemption provision does not insulate anyone from violating a haz mat regulation or when the packaging does not conform to a specification under the haz mat regulations.
The procedure utilized by the defendant manufacturer, filing an administrative petition with PHMSA seeking a preemption ruling, is interesting. Unlike the FRSA, the HMTA specifically permits PHMSA to make a preemption decision on the legal claims brought Mr. Elder's survivors. So, in effect, an administrative agency has made a preemption decision which presumably will end a legal case pending in the Courts.
The underlying event was the explosion of a DOT specification 39 cylinder, which exploded in January 2003 when placed in 180 deg. water. The explosion killed Kenneth Elder, whose survivors brought a product liability action against the cylinder manufacturer.
PHMSA's ruling came after the manufacturer petitioned the agency to make a preemption ruling on the underlying tort claims. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act gives the agency authority to make such rulings, under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d).
Under the HMTA, claims relating to design, manufacture and labeling are preempted if the "non-federal requirement (i.e. a lawsuit seeking to impose an additional warning) is not "substantively the same" as federal regulation under the haz mat act. This is a somewhat different standard than preemption under the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) - 49 U.S.C. 20106 - which permits more stringent state regulation covering the same subject matter as federal rail regulations if the state regulation is meant to address a local safety hazard and does not burden interstate commerce.
PHMSA determined that any "state requirement, including a State's common law" which is not substantively the same as the federal regulations on the design, manufacturing, or marking of a haz mat package is preempted, and thus, the underlying claim that Mr. Elder's death was a result of an improper design, marking, or warning of the cylinder was preempted. PHMSA did emphasize, however, that the HMTA preemption provision does not insulate anyone from violating a haz mat regulation or when the packaging does not conform to a specification under the haz mat regulations.
The procedure utilized by the defendant manufacturer, filing an administrative petition with PHMSA seeking a preemption ruling, is interesting. Unlike the FRSA, the HMTA specifically permits PHMSA to make a preemption decision on the legal claims brought Mr. Elder's survivors. So, in effect, an administrative agency has made a preemption decision which presumably will end a legal case pending in the Courts.
Monday, December 12, 2011
STB to Determine if Rail Tariff requiring HazMat Indemnity from Shippers is Reasonable
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) announced its decision today to determine if a railroad's requirement of indemnity from shippers for hazardous material liability is reasonable.
The STB has accepted the Petition by the Union Pacific to determine if it is reasonable to include in its tariff, or shipping rates, for hazardous materials shipments, a requirement that the railroad be indemnified from liabilities arising from haz mat incidents caused by the shipper's negligence. The tariff-based indemnity provisions relate to the loading, sealing, and securing the commodity, or the condition of the equipment tendered by the shipper (known in the industry as the packaging). The UP's tariff does not indemnify it from liabilities cause by its own negligence or fault.
Procedurally, this issue is similar to a former ex parte docket item the Board had pending for some time (Docket EP-677). That docket was closed, after significant comment by carrier and shipper interests, in favor of an actual controversy rather than what the Board at the time considered a policy statement in the abstract.
Even though the petition before the Board is the UP's request to consider its tariff imposing indemnity requirements on its shippers, the Board has opened the proceeding to comment from the public, outside of the original parties to the petition. According to the Board's Order, anyone interested in joining the proceeding is to file with the Board by December 27, 2011.
Ultimately, this proceeding picks up where prior docket EP 677 left off to some extent in that the Board now has a live case to decide the reasonableness of rail carriers imposing indemnity obligations on the shippers of hazardous materials.
The STB has accepted the Petition by the Union Pacific to determine if it is reasonable to include in its tariff, or shipping rates, for hazardous materials shipments, a requirement that the railroad be indemnified from liabilities arising from haz mat incidents caused by the shipper's negligence. The tariff-based indemnity provisions relate to the loading, sealing, and securing the commodity, or the condition of the equipment tendered by the shipper (known in the industry as the packaging). The UP's tariff does not indemnify it from liabilities cause by its own negligence or fault.
Procedurally, this issue is similar to a former ex parte docket item the Board had pending for some time (Docket EP-677). That docket was closed, after significant comment by carrier and shipper interests, in favor of an actual controversy rather than what the Board at the time considered a policy statement in the abstract.
Even though the petition before the Board is the UP's request to consider its tariff imposing indemnity requirements on its shippers, the Board has opened the proceeding to comment from the public, outside of the original parties to the petition. According to the Board's Order, anyone interested in joining the proceeding is to file with the Board by December 27, 2011.
Ultimately, this proceeding picks up where prior docket EP 677 left off to some extent in that the Board now has a live case to decide the reasonableness of rail carriers imposing indemnity obligations on the shippers of hazardous materials.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Sixth Circuit Denies Medical Monitoring and Fear of Cancer Claims
Looks like it is Circuit Court week here at TLT.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, upheld the grant of summary judgment to CSX Transportation, Inc. in an action brought by local residents following the October 2007 derailment and fire near Painesville, Ohio. Liability was not an issue. Rather the questions before the Court were causation and injury, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, whether there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to consider.
The residents suing the railroad did not have current injuries, but sued for medical monitoring expenses and an increased risk of future cancer. After summary judgment was granted by the District Court, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that expert testimony supporting plaintiffs' claims of increased risk of cancer was speculative, and bordered on "legal insignificance."
A copy of the Opinion is attached here.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, upheld the grant of summary judgment to CSX Transportation, Inc. in an action brought by local residents following the October 2007 derailment and fire near Painesville, Ohio. Liability was not an issue. Rather the questions before the Court were causation and injury, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, whether there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to consider.
The residents suing the railroad did not have current injuries, but sued for medical monitoring expenses and an increased risk of future cancer. After summary judgment was granted by the District Court, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that expert testimony supporting plaintiffs' claims of increased risk of cancer was speculative, and bordered on "legal insignificance."
A copy of the Opinion is attached here.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Welcome to Transportation Law Today
Welcome to the inaugural post of Transportation Law Today! My name is Paul Loftus and I am a transportation attorney with 13 years experience in litigating transportation matters. In my practice, and in my daily information reading, I often come across items of interest to transportation entities. In particular, I follow regulatory developments in surface transportation (rail, highway, marine), as well as legal developments affecting the industry. I hope to share interesting information with the transportation community through this blog and I look forward to hearing from the "blogoshere" out there.
Please remember this blog does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.
1. Surface Transportation Board ends Common Carrier Toxic by Inhalation Hazard Committee Process
In an April 15, 2011 decision by the entire board, the Surface Transportation Board, the independent economic regulatory agency that regulates rail rates and disputes (among other things), terminated its process to create a "Toxic by Inhalation Hazard Common Carrier Transportation Advisory Committee." See decision here.
The TIH committee process was initiated to provide advice to the Board on issues related to the common carrier obligation of railroads to carry hazardous materials, and the issue of potential indemnity for carrying haz-mats. As explained in the Board decision, concerns about anti-trust liability by committee participants, and a "sharp difference of opinion" between railroad and shipper interests as to the Board's authority to regulate liability for common carrier shipments led to the demise of the effort.
2. National Transportation Safety Board Issues (NTSB) 10 Most-Wanted Safety Improvement List
On June 23, 2011, the NTSB issued its latest 10 Most-Wanted Safety Improvements list. Among the areas covered are promoting pilot and air traffic controller professionalism, addressing human fatigue, and requiring on board image and data recorders on trains.
Have a happy Fourth of July Weekend. - PJL.
Please remember this blog does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.
1. Surface Transportation Board ends Common Carrier Toxic by Inhalation Hazard Committee Process
In an April 15, 2011 decision by the entire board, the Surface Transportation Board, the independent economic regulatory agency that regulates rail rates and disputes (among other things), terminated its process to create a "Toxic by Inhalation Hazard Common Carrier Transportation Advisory Committee." See decision here.
The TIH committee process was initiated to provide advice to the Board on issues related to the common carrier obligation of railroads to carry hazardous materials, and the issue of potential indemnity for carrying haz-mats. As explained in the Board decision, concerns about anti-trust liability by committee participants, and a "sharp difference of opinion" between railroad and shipper interests as to the Board's authority to regulate liability for common carrier shipments led to the demise of the effort.
2. National Transportation Safety Board Issues (NTSB) 10 Most-Wanted Safety Improvement List
On June 23, 2011, the NTSB issued its latest 10 Most-Wanted Safety Improvements list. Among the areas covered are promoting pilot and air traffic controller professionalism, addressing human fatigue, and requiring on board image and data recorders on trains.
Have a happy Fourth of July Weekend. - PJL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)