Is There a Correlation Between Vapor Pressure and the Severity of Crude Oil Transportation Incidents?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSUE BRIEF 03.20.19 Is There a Correlation between Vapor Pressure and the Severity of Crude Oil Transportation Incidents? Rachel A. Meidl, LP.D., CHMM, Fellow in Energy and Environment, Center for Energy Studies actions called for improved standards TRANSPORT OF CRUDE BY RAIL for both new and existing tank cars INCREASING (retrofitting or new design specifications, Although crude oil has been transported such as thermal blankets and top-fittings); 4 by rail for years, there is a noticeable a sampling and testing program; reduced uptick in the Permian Basin and Bakken operating speeds; information sharing to 5 region as companies struggle to build state emergency response commissions; 6 pipeline infrastructure to meet production enhanced braking; and comprehensive oil 7 demands that are further delayed by legal spill response plans. Not long after, then- challenges and public opposition. This President Barack Obama signed the Fixing resurgence could place pressure on the America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Act) into law, which instructed DOT to Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety institute additional regulatory amendments Administration (PHMSA) to revitalize efforts to tank car design standards and to revise to assess the safe transport of crude oil the tank car phase-out schedule codified in the HHFT rule, prioritizing crude oil and Pipelines are the safest by rail and to specifically consider the means to transport roles of vapor pressure1 and volatility2 in ethanol. Neither the HHFT final rule nor an accident scenario. Past high-profile the FAST Act directly addressed the role of energy, with pipelines accidents have raised concerns for volatility or vapor pressure thresholds of safely delivering PHMSA about the safety of rail transport crude oil transported by rail. over 99.999% of all There were several lines of reasoning of crude oil, including physical and shipments. The efficacy chemical properties; adequacy of transport behind this deliberate oversight. PHMSA did regulations; rail integrity; packaging; and not propose new rules concerning vapor and strong safety conditioning and stabilization practices. pressure, incentives to reduce volatility, record of the pipeline In response to some of these concerns, or other specific requirements related to transportation system vapor pressure in the notice to proposed PHMSA published a final rule that went should be underscored into effect in July 2015, the Enhanced Tank rulemaking of the HHFT. Accordingly, the Car Standards and Operational Controls for agency could not introduce new changes or as a viable and safe High-Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFT),3 an obligations in the final HHFT rule, as doing so means of transport for expansive multibillion-dollar rulemaking would violate the Administrative Procedures crude oil. intended to improve the safe transportation Act by omitting public comment prior to a 8 of large quantities of flammable materials, rule becoming final. Also, in 2014 after many particularly crude oil and ethanol, by rail. years of discussion, the rail and oil industry, The HHFT rule and other congruous agency with PHMSA’s participation, developed the RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // ISSUE BRIEF // 03.20.19 first ever recommended practice designed to measurement methods and conditions improve crude oil rail safety through proper utilized by PHMSA, the NDIC, Transport sampling, testing, classification, and loading Canada, and various oil operators to practices. This resulted in an American test for vapor pressure throughout the National Standards Institute recognized 2013-2105 sampling period were not industry standard and American Petroleum consistent. Furthermore, the vapor Institute Recommended Practice 3000, pressure methodology PHMSA employed Classifying and Loading of Crude Oil into Rail is not currently incorporated into the U.S. Tank Cars.9 In addition, the North Dakota regulations, nor are they integrated into Neither the UN Model Industrial Commission (NDIC), a body that Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Good Regulations, Transport regulates oil and gas drilling and production (TDG) regulations or the United Nations (UN) Canada’s dangerous in North Dakota, issued a conditioning order Model Regulations. The lack of harmonization requiring all oil producers in the state to and recognition by these entities could cause goods regulations, nor significantly reduce the vapor pressure of all enforcement issues as well as significant the U.S. hazardous Bakken crude oil beginning April 1, 2015.10 hazard classification and package selection materials regulations During this time, since a large proportion of discrepancies (e.g., non-pressurized tank car define “vapor pressure” the crude oil shipped on rail was originating versus a pressurized tank car). Nearly every from the Bakken region, PHMSA chose to interested party disagrees with how crude or how it should rely on North Dakota and other oil-producing oil should be sampled and tested (open cup be determined and states to regulate the risk of vapor pressure versus closed cup, pressurized versus non- measured. through the NDIC order. Consequently, on pressurized), what vapor pressure reading is January 18, 2017, two days before President most relevant for crude oil classification and Donald Trump was inaugurated, PHMSA transportation (Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, published an Advance Notice of Proposed Reid equivalent, or true vapor pressure),11 and Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting input on the conditions of measurement (vapor-to- the volatility of petroleum products and liquid ratio and temperature) that would yield flammable liquids and the consideration reproducible and accurate vapor pressures. of the establishment of a national vapor The general lack of uniformity in methods pressure threshold for these commodities on and quality assurance/quality control any mode of transport. across the industry creates complications when comparing crude oil vapor pressure. Further, how a sample is collected and tested WHY IS VAPOR PRESSURE AN ISSUE? produces wildly disparate results, making all the difference when classifying the materials The concern with high vapor pressure is and selecting the appropriate packaging and that it is indicative of a higher proportion of transport system. organic compounds of low molecular weight Second, although technically vapor such as methane, ethane, or propane, known pressure is a key property in determining as “light ends,” as well as elevated levels of whether a substance meets the definition dissolved gases. There are widely diverging of a liquid or gas, neither the UN Model opinions within DOT and industry regarding: Regulations, Transport Canada’s TDG, nor (1) the role vapor pressure and volatility play the U.S. hazardous materials regulations in a normal transportation incident, (2) if define “vapor pressure” or how it should elevated levels of dissolved gases increase be determined and measured. It is also the volatility of crude oil, and (3) if high important to note that the current U.S. vapor pressure accentuates the severity definition for a flammable gas differs from of consequences of an incident. However, various international regulations, including studies have not conclusively quantified the Transport Canada’s. In the U.S., the regulatory potential hazard associated with higher vapor language for distinguishing between a pressure in crude oil transportation scenarios. flammable gas and flammable liquid is Several issues warrant attention insufficient to manage materials that are a should PHMSA reopen this topic. First, mixture of dissolved flammable gases within the standardized sampling, testing, and a flammable liquid. The crude oil samples 2 IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN VAPOR PRESSURE AND THE SEVERITY OF CRUDE OIL TRANSPORTATION INCIDENTS? collected by PHMSA, the NDIC, and Transport Canada yielded vapor pressure readings that VAPOR PRESSURE: MISALIGNED would push the classification from what CONDITIONS FOR RULEMAKING would traditionally be a primary hazard class Since 2013, PHMSA has taken a number of flammable liquid to a primary hazard class actions to improve the safe transport of flammable gas. crude oil. Due to a shift in priorities with With this designation, a crude oil that the change in political leadership, the meets the definition of a flammable gas Trump administration tabled the Obama- (with a secondary hazard classification as a era ANPRM on the volatility of petroleum flammable liquid) would theoretically require products. The ANPRM was PHMSA’s reaction a more robust means of containment during to several crude oil incidents and petitions transport, such as a pressurized tank car for for rulemaking, as well as the results of rail or pressurized tank truck for highway As of today, PHMSA crude oil sampling and testing conducted by transportation. However, there is technically PHMSA, Transport Canada, the NDIC, and oil still needs to determine no existing authorized tank or rail car to operators between 2013 to 2015. The data what role, if any, transport dissolved gases in flammable yielded a range of vapor pressure results, liquids since U.S. and international vapor pressure plays some exceeding the limit set by the NDIC. regulations lack a classification scheme for in the severity of a The presumption in the ANPRM was that a mixture of this type. Another new tank car transportation incident, limiting the product’s vapor pressure could specification standard for transporting