I've been talking to my friend Ron who is a retired NYSDOT
guy, who was an inspector in the commercial division (big rigs).
Ron also worked for the railroads.
Ron is super smart, and he really knows these US DOT Special Permits (SP).
The Short Answer:
1: It would take enormous expense and effort to meet the permit conditions, so much so, that this SP will likely never be used.
2: There is a legal question as to whether the shipper New Fortress Energy
can legally fill these DOT-113 cars, when the authorization was
granted to permitee Energy Transport Solutions. Are these distinct business
entities? Or the same? (If so, then why the charade of a second fictitious name?)
For reference:
PHMSA Announcement Page:
The Special Permit:
Notice:
1. GRANTEE: Energy Transport Solutions, LLC, Doral, FL
and this:
2. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION:
c. No party status will be granted to this special permit.
c. No party status will be granted to this special permit.
This is different from the Special Permit which we see, for example,
with the CNG #BombTrucks. In that case, the SP is issued to the
*manufacturer*. (e.g., Hexagon Lincoln, Quantum Fuel Systems).
Then, any carrier (e.g, NG Advantage, or XNG) can use these
trailers, as long as a copy of the SP is carried on board.
In the case of SP-20534, this permit is issued to a SHIPPER,
Energy Transport Solutions, LLC (ETS).
Because "no party status is granted", this means the permit is
ONLY good for this one shipper.
Ron says this Special Permit ONLY applies to this shipper.
However in the case of the proposed Wyalusing, Bradford Co, PA
LNG terminal, the shipper is New Fortress Energy.
Huh?
Well, it turns out New Fortress Energy has 73 subsidiaries (!!): one is ETS:
This raises red flags for me. The reasons corporations use multiple
business entities like this (wholly owned subsidiaries, and more complex
ownership structures) is because often they can ESCAPE REGULATION
or LIMIT LIABILITY pretending to be two different business entities.
But other times, (like with this Special Permit), they have to be the same.
This could be a legal challenge. Seems like funny business.
Ron also says the permit conditions are very strict, and would
be difficult to meet. "This permit could only be used in an emergency
situation".
It requires ETS to provide training to all first responders who
could potentially respond ( @ §7(c)(5) of the Special Permit)
which is potentially dozens of different agencies all along the route.
which is potentially dozens of different agencies all along the route.
The permit states that the routes will not be decided by the permit,
but are to be determined by the railroad operator dynamically.
The effort to a) locate every possible first responding agency,
and b) provide training to them, would be ENORMOUS.
The effort to a) locate every possible first responding agency,
and b) provide training to them, would be ENORMOUS.
The permit also requires that this is a "direct route with no stops".
This means the train will likely be a "Unit Train" with only one type
of cargo, with a common shipper/customer. Point to Point.
It also requires complex telemetry for each car (pressure, leaks, location),
@ §7(a)(3) of SP-20534, which would require a massive back-end tracking system
@ §7(a)(3) of SP-20534, which would require a massive back-end tracking system
developed, probably communicating with satellites.
Perhaps such a system already exists, and it's all just turnkey.
Perhaps such a system already exists, and it's all just turnkey.
But it looks to me it would take a large amount of planning to
set it up and make this work.
The other problem is availibility of DOT-113 cars.
Ron says they are used in Canada, but not much
in the US, presently, for cryogenic, non-LNG gases.
Ron says this SP is most likely moot,
that it MOST LIKELY will never be used.
that it MOST LIKELY will never be used.
He thinks the AAR (railroad trade association)
had a hand in drafting this permit. This org represents
the railroad operators.
Ron says, "the AAR wants LNG by rail (because it's
revenue for the operators it represents), but they
want this occur in an approved package.
The entire reason why a Special Permit is necessary,
is because the DOT-113 cryogenic tanker is presently
not an approved package for LNG.
Ron says, This Special Permit is an emergency back-up plan,
should the new regulations fail to pass.
We joked at this point about: Emergency? What Emergency?
A stockholder didn't get his dividend in a timely manner?
What is the national emergency for moving LNG by rail?
A major purpose of the PHMSA "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (NPRM)
for LNG by rail, is to make the DOT-113 an "authorized package"
for shipping LNG by rail.
The railroad operators take responsibility for any HAZMAT shipments
which occur in authorized packages. The potential liability for rail accidents
involving HAZMAT could be $100M or more. So the insurance companies
have a hand in crafting the regs.
You can now comment on the Special Permit:
(it was closed when I looked previously -- so PHMSA has just opened
this up! Maybe due to Senator DeFazio's complaint?)
...as well as commenting on the Regs:
My suggestion is that we focus on making comments on the Regs.
The special permit is likely moot -> would take ENORMOUS effort.
I hope this is helpful,
BH
Please support my work:
I have $760 of unmet bills
(911/DESPERATE NEED HERE!)
(911/DESPERATE NEED HERE!)
GoFundMe: gf.me/u/wwddpt
Check the Go Fund Me update to see a list
of my present projects. THANK YOU!
--
William Huston: WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY
Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog
William Huston: WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY
Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog
Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston
No comments:
Post a Comment