STEEP FALLS — Since last July, three high-profile accidents have occurred involving the movement of crude oil by rail. While these accidents have not directly affected any rail passengers, they certainly have created a firestorm of criticism regarding the movement of light crude oil from the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana.

Residents in Maine and elsewhere who live close to railroad rights of way have expressed concern about their families’ safety. To its credit, the U.S. Department of Transportation recently issued a safety alert warning the public, emergency responders and shippers about the potential high volatility of the crude being shipped from the Bakken oil patch.

Federal officials have also met with oil and railroad executives in a closed-door session to consider voluntary measures that could be adopted, such as altering some routes and slowing trains that carry crude oil in areas that pose the greatest threat to public safety. But much more needs to be done to ensure the public’s safety.

Pan Am Railways, which has been hauling oil through southern Maine, has cut back on oil shipments since the Lac-Megantic disaster in 2013. But it may be only a matter of time before this changes.

The amount of oil moved by rail across the nation has increased dramatically from 10,000 tank cars in 2009 to an estimated 400,000 in 2013. In Portland, Oregon, up to 600,000 barrels of oil rolls through the city via rail each month from North Dakota.

This area will see even more trains carrying crude oil if a proposed terminal is built in Vancouver, Washington. The project, which is under review by Washington state regulators, could handle four trains a day and ship as many as 360,000 barrels of crude oil daily to West Coast refineries. The California Energy Commission also projects that by 2016, rail deliveries of crude oil could account for up to a quarter of that state’s total crude oil deliveries.

The federal government response to date fails to address a longstanding problem that was first recognized in the early 1990s.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the “inadequate design of the DOT-111 tank cars” for crude oil transportation makes them “subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials” in a derailment.

This same agency also sounded the alarm about the DOT-111 tank cars after the derailment of a Canadian National Railway train carrying highly inflammable ethanol at a grade crossing in Cherry Valley, Illinois, in 2009. Thirteen of the 19 cars that derailed ruptured and caught fire, killing one person, injuring nine and causing an estimated $7.9 million in property damage.

The Rail Users’ Network – a national organization that represents the interests of all rail passengers, including long-distance, commuter and transit riders – has called for the retrofitting of these cars in a statement to the U.S. DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last October.

We support the federal safety watchdog’s recommendations, first issued March 2, 2012, that the pipeline safety administration call for the retrofitting of the existing fleet of DOT-111 tank cars that carry crude oil and ethanol to meet new standards. This would include extra protective head shields at both ends of tank cars, additional protection for the top fittings, higher-flow-capacity pressure release valves and thicker, puncture-resistant shells.

The Rail Users’ Network also applauds the Association of American Railroads for its recent stand urging the pipeline safety administration to press for improved tank car safety, requiring all tank cars used to transport flammable liquids to be retrofitted or phased out, with new cars being built to more stringent standards.

This may be a financial hardship for the owners of the 78,000 cars that need to be retrofitted, but a cost-effective solution can be adopted to ensure the safety of rail passengers and residents living along the rights of way.

The public needs to be reassured about the safety of transporting crude oil by rail. Otherwise, this certainly will spark a new round of NIMBYism and could even discourage people from riding passenger trains, at a time when that ridership is at an all-time high.

While oil and chemical companies argue that retrofitting costs cannot be justified because of an estimated cost of over $1 billion over the life of a retrofitting program, we agree with the National Transportation Safety Board that there is “no rational reason to not require the retrofitting of the existing fleet consistent with NTSB’s recommendation.”

Those who share this concern should contact U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-2nd District, who serves on the House Transportation & Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Waste Materials.

— Special to the Press Herald