Secretly Approved in Alaska, Will LNG Trains Soon Appear in Rest of US?

picture-19140-1402511670.jpg
on

In 2015, a federal rail agency authorized the Alaska Railroad Corporation to ship its first batch of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail in Alaska, but granted this permission behind closed doors, according to documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and provided toย DeSmog.

The documents, a series of letters and legal memoranda obtainedย through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), show that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) may have violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by permitting the shipping of LNG, a highly combustible and flammable material, via rail without any public notification or commentย period. The agency granted the Alaska Railroad Corporationย a legal exemptionย under 49 C.F.R. ยง 174.63(a).

That federal statuteย mandates that a โ€œcarrier may not transport a bulk packaging โ€ฆ containing a hazardous material in container-on-flatcar (COFC) or trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) service โ€ฆ unless approved for transportation byโ€ the FRA.ย 

The Association of American Railroads (AAR), a rail industry lobbying group,ย has since petitioned the FRA for the ability to ship LNG tankers by rail (as opposed to containers or trailers on flatcars), filing the request on January 17, according to documents on file atย Regulations.gov.

โ€œAAR petitions for rulemaking to authorize the transportation of methane, refrigerated liquid (โ€œLNGโ€), by rail in โ€ฆ tank cars,โ€ reads the AAR petition. โ€œLNG should be authorized for rail transportation because it is a safe method of transporting this commodity, LNG shippers have indicated a desire to use rail to transport it, and because railroads potentially will need to transport LNG for their own use as a locomotiveย fuel.โ€

In its petition, AAR โ€” whose members include nearly all of the major rail companiesย โ€” says that natural gas companies want to explore transporting LNG by rail in various regions aroundย Northย America.

โ€œNotwithstanding the requirement for a special approval, customers have expressed interest in shipping LNG by rail from Pennsylvania to New England, and between the U.S. and Mexico,โ€ wrote AAR. โ€œAuthorizing transportation of LNG by rail likely would stimulate moreย interest.โ€

As previously reported by DeSmog, much of the natural gas currently obtained via hydraulic fracturing (โ€œfrackingโ€) currently has no delivery mechanism, due to lack of both pipeline capacity and current legal authority to ship it on freight train tank cars. Alaska, home ofย the first operational LNG-by-rail market, currently is seeing a nascent push for fracking.

On February 9, the FRAย acknowledged in a letter that it is currently reviewing AAR‘s petition, although it refers to the petition being filed January 13, not 17.ย Robert Fronczak, anย AAR executive and author of the petition to FRA, did not respond to a request forย comment.


Credit: U.S. Federal Railroadย Administration

LNG By Rail: Alaskaย Timeline

The current push to transport LNG byย train in Alaska appears to begin with aย November 14, 2014 letter written byย Alaska Railroad’sย Chief Operating Officer,ย Doug Engebretson,ย to the FRA. In the letter,ย the State of Alaska-owned company declared its desire to ship LNG by rail due in part to the state’s inadequate road system compared to its railย network.

โ€œThe Alaska Railroad serves the State of Alaska with approximately 611 miles of track and siding that extend from the southern port town of Seward, Alaska, to the northern terminus at Fairbanks, Alaska,โ€ wroteย Engebretson in theย letter.

โ€œAlso unlike most locations in the Lower 48, the road system in Alaska is, at best, limited. In the 663,267 square-mile area of the state, there are only 4 limited roads on the interstate highway system, for a total of only 1,081 miles,โ€ Engebretson continued. โ€œThus, the Alaska Railroad serves as a major transportation link among the more populated areas of the state, the only transportation provider for some remote areas, and a critical source of freight and other goods for areas that are not served by roads atย all.โ€


Credit: U.S. Federal Railroadย Administration

On February 6, 2015, Engebretson wrote a follow-upย 17-page legal memorandumย to the FRA seeking legal authority to ship LNG onย Alaska Railroad’s trains. In its legal petition, the company asked for permission to allow two LNG-loaded trains, each 30 to 70 carsย in length, on the rails perย week.

Later that year, FRA‘s Associate Administrator of Railroad Safety, Robert Lauby, responded toย Engebretson in an October 9, 2015 letter, authorizing the shipment of LNG on two freight trains per week. Lauby also laidย out a list of 11 conditions to follow, which includedย allowing the company to conduct safety inspections and report them toย FRA, instead of having the federal agency directly involved inย inspections.

โ€œ[Alaska Railroad] must perform a minimum of one track geometry car inspection annually (at least every 365 calendar days [and it] must report the results of this inspection to FRA within 30 days of completing the inspection,โ€ wrote Lauby. โ€œ[The company] must perform at least four internal rail flaw inspections annually, with no more than 95 calendar days between each inspection [and] must report the results of this inspection to FRA within 30 days of completing eachย inspection.โ€

The original FRA permit allowed Alaska Railroad to ship LNG by rail for two years, with the permit expiring in October 2017. But a month later, Lauby wrote a November 2, 2015ย follow-upย to Engebretson, now granting Alaska Railroad the ability to ship three LNG trains per weekย until December 2020. The documents do not make clear what prompted FRA to take such anย action.

During that same period, according to lobbying disclosure forms, Alaska Railroad began lobbying the FRA. The company hired C.J. Zanes, former chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK), and Katherine Scontras, former staffer for U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), to undertake thisย effort.


Credit:ย Office of the Clerk, U.S. House ofย Representatives

Alaska Railroad, led by Scontras and Zane, hasย continued to lobby in support of LNG by rail ever sinceย the third quarter of 2015. The company’s first batch of LNG officially hit Alaska’sย tracks in September 2016, which has led to concerns from environmentalย groups.

โ€œA derailment or natural-gas explosion would devastate Alaskaโ€™s communities and wildlife. Our salmon and herring runs and impacted wildlife have never fully recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill, and that was almost 30 years ago,โ€ Dune Lankard, Alaska representative for CBD, said at the time in a press release. โ€œAlaskans deserve more than to be guinea pigs for the LNGย industry.โ€ย 

NEPAย Violation?

What is apparentย from the documents obtained by CBD is that neither the public nor any other stakeholderย besides Alaska Railroadย appears to have beenย consulted on the proposed approval to moveย LNG byย rail.

And that, in turn, may have been a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, according to critics. Another question raised by project opponents is whyย NEPA does not appear to have beenย applied atย all.

Normally, major infrastructure project proposals trigger a governmental review process under NEPA, which allowsย citizens, environmental groups,ย industry groups, and other interested partiesย to weigh inย on the proposal either in comments, through public hearings, or sometimesย both.ย 

After all, as Alaska Railroad’s legalย petition pointed out, along the 611-mile-long trip between Seward and Fairbanks, LNG-loadedย trains would pass throughย Anchorage, Alaska, which has a population of over 300,000 people and is the most populous city in theย state.

The NEPA process culminates with a federalย agency producing either an environmental assessment orย a more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed project,ย whichย recommends either approving or rejectingย it.

NEPA, then, was apparently not in play for the LNG-by-rail authorization in Alaska, though the reasoning for this is not clear at this time. However, thisย national environmental lawย likely will take effect if AAR‘s petition for rule-making process proceeds, which seeks a regulatory systemย allowing LNG shipments by rail tank cars on a nationalย scale.

โ€œNEPA requires environmental analysis for all federal actions (involving approval of specific projects) with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment,โ€ Steve Jones, a CBD media specialist, toldย DeSmog.

โ€œFRAโ€™s approval of Alaska Railroad’s transportation of hazardous materials should constitute a major federal action subject to NEPA. In addition, the transportation of hazardous materials most likely constitutes an action ‘significantly affecting the quality of the humanย environment.’โ€

โ€œI would sayย authorizing the transport of LNG by [Alaska Railroad] is a ‘major federal action’ [as defined under NEPA] with potentially significant environmental effects that is subject to NEPA and FRA should have done an environmental assessment to determine whether a full-blown EIS was necessary,โ€ Pat Parenteau, a law professor at Vermont Law School and former Director of Vermont Law School’s Environmental Law Center, toldย DeSmog.

โ€œI am not aware of any exemption from NEPA requirements for this type of authorization. If the FRA is claiming such an exemption, I would like to see what it is basedย upon.โ€

At this point, however, neither CBD nor any other group canย file a NEPA lawsuit against the FRA for Alaska Railroad’s LNG-by-rail permit. The statute of limitations expired 60 days after FRA‘s unpublicized November 2, 2015 letter to Alaskaย Railroad.

โ€œNeed To Raiseย Hellโ€

When reached for comment, FRA pointed DeSmog to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materialsย Safety Administration (PHMSA). A PHMSA official told DeSmogย there is no timeline for when it will decide whether to grantย AAR‘s petition to allow LNG-by-rail tank car shipments permanently and outside of Alaska. Alaska Railroad officials did not respond to a request forย comment.

โ€œAs if outdated rail cars carrying volatile crude oil didn’t pose enough of a danger to the tens of millions of Americans who live and work โ€ฆย near our country’s rail lines, the railroad industry is now quietly seeking permissionย to transport explosive LNG through our communities,โ€ Ross Hammond, U.S. campaigns director for Stand.earth, told DeSmog. โ€œFirst responders, public officials, and communities along the rail lines will need to raise hell if there’s any hope of stoppingย this.โ€

Main image: The Alaska Railroad, rolling between Anchorage, Denali National Park, and Fairbanks.ย Credit: Axe,ย Wikimedia Commons,ย CC BYSAย 4.0

Related Posts

on

Campaigners say the European Commission has โ€œcompletely embarrassed itselfโ€ by offering โ€œflimsy excusesโ€ for taking oil and gas lobbyists to the flagship summit.

Campaigners say the European Commission has โ€œcompletely embarrassed itselfโ€ by offering โ€œflimsy excusesโ€ for taking oil and gas lobbyists to the flagship summit.
on

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.
on

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.
Opinion
on

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.