Analysis: Rail industry caught between cities, federal, and chemical industry preferences
This is another case of security as a public good, and who should pay for it: The rail industry is caught between different forces pushing in different directions on the issue of transporting hazardous chemicals; as more and more cities move to reroute shipments of such materials unless they are destined for the city, the issue will come to a head sooner rather than later
Do not envy the U.S. rail industry. It is caught in the middle of a struggle between cities, the federal government, and the chemical industry over the issue of the safety of transporting hazardous chemicals. The rail industry would rather not ship these deadly chemicals at all — there is that much money in it, but there is too much risk, and too many expenses if safety regulations were really to be tightened. It has no choice, though, as federal regulations forbid the industry from refusing to carry the chemicals.”
Congress may be moving toward imposing minimal safety standards on chemical plants, but there are no such standards on the transportation of deadly chemicals. This fact makes leaders of cities around the United States nervous. Boston officials are now considering keeping rail cars carrying hazardous chemicals at least ten miles away unless the city is their destination. A plan in Chicago would prohibit such tanker cars in its downtown Loop. In Cleveland, city officials are considering banning them near Lake Erie, water treatment plants, and crowded neighborhoods. The District of Columbia has already enacted rules keeping chemical toxins away from rails which come too close to Capitol Hill, and Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the three cities mentioned earlier will do so soon.”
Federal law requires railroads to carry such chemicals, which are used in manufacturing, water-purification systems, and wastewater-treatment plants. There are, however, no federal regulations for securing the transport of these chemicals, and the industry is critical of individual cities trying to do so on their own. The rail industry, with federal support, has sued the District of Columbia over its law.”
Critics say that the industry’s — and the federal government’s — argument that enough is being done to protect hazardous shipments is not serious. A few miles from midtown Manhattan, for example, a chain-link fence topped with razor-sharp wire surrounds a rail yard in Jersey City, New Jersey. Yes, “No Trespassing” signs abound, but it is easy to step through some weeds and onto the tracks that lead directly into the fenced-in rail yard. In fact, rail yards, and tankers themselves, are often covered with graffiti, an indication of how easy it is even for teenagers with artistic tendencies to make it into the yards.”
Rail officials say that dangerous cars represent a small percentage of the nation’s rail cargo. Of 1.7 million carloads of hazardous materials transported each year, only about 100,000 contain the most dangerous toxic inhalants like chlorine and anhydrous ammonia.”
Last Friday DHS and the Department of Transportation issued “recommended security action items” for the rail transport of “toxic inhalation hazard materials.” It calls for putting one person in charge of these shipments; restricting access to information about them; and ensuring regular communications with federal, state, and local emergency responders. The memo’s second sentence reads: “All measures are voluntary.” That prompted an angry reaction from some on Capitol Hill. Federal transportation and homeland security officials say the guidelines are just a first step that can be implemented right away. They also say the guidelines do not preclude future regulations. ”
Rail officials contend this is one of the most difficult and expensive security problems the industry faces. Peggy Wilhide of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) in Washington, D.C. says the railroads would rather not carry such dangerous cargo at all. Recently, the AAR came out in favor of industry switching to less dangerous chemicals where possible, a move that puts it at odds with its customer, the chemical industry — but also with the administration, which objects to forcing the chemical industry to switch to safer materials and technologies. “If we had our choice we wouldn’t move it because it constitutes less than 1/10th of our profit and 99 percent of our risk,” says Wilhide. “We’d at least like a clear set of guidelines.”
