September 2019, Vol. 246, No. 9
Government
PHMSA Likely to Accelerate LNG Rail Shipments
Environmentalists are broadening their opposition to natural gas transportation beyond pipelines by opposing the shipment of LNG on rail cars.
As a result, Florida company Energy Transport Solutions’ (ETS) application to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for a special permit to send 100-plus large tank cars of LNG through Florida en route to ports for delivery overseas has drawn added scrutiny.
ETS’s application was filed in 2017 and got a boost when President Trump issued an executive order April 10, calling for LNG to be moved throughout the U.S. in rail tank cars within 13 months. On June 6, PHMSA published a draft environmental assessment that outlined agency support for the company’s plan to move LNG through Florida.
Environmental groups and Democrats in Congress have raised alarms about the potential rail movement of LNG. Rep. Vic DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, sent a letter to PHMSA Administrator Howard Elliott, saying, the planned use of the Florida East Coast Railway “would be placing large swaths of people and critical infrastructure (hospitals, schools, highways, and even the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort) in jeopardy.”
PHMSA currently allows LNG to be transported from any origin to any destination by truck when it is in an approved package, like an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) tank or an insulated cargo tank trailer (MC-338). However, the DOT-113C120W tank cars that are the subject of the special permit application from ETS are not currently approved packaging for transporting LNG by rail.
That is the reason ETS submitted a special permit request, which PHMSA can approve if doing so “achieves a level of safety at least equal to that required by regulation, or if a required safety level does not exist, is consistent with the public interest.”
The conclusion PHMSA reached in its draft environmental assessment was:
“Moreover, the existing regulatory requirements that govern the movement of cryogenic flammable materials similar to LNG are expected to provide adequate safety measures for LNG shipped in DOT-113C120W tank cars. This analysis did not identify any significant environmental impacts from granting this special permit.”
But safety risks, not environmental damage, were the predominate concern of environmental groups. The Earthjustice affiliate in Florida wrote to the PHMSA, “This is a highly dangerous activity that has the potential to result in fires, explosions, and derailment, which is particularly dangerous when the transportation of LNG travels through populated areas.”
PHMSA answered that concern by pointing out that LNG is already allowed to be shipped on trucks using less secure shipping containers (MC-338) than what ETS plans to use. The agency stated, “Moreover, the existing regulatory requirements that govern the movement of cryogenic flammable materials similar to LNG are expected to provide adequate safety measures for LNG shipped in DOT-113C120W tank cars.”
ETS is a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, which did not respond to an emailed request for information on its application. P&GJ
Comments