DC trying to ban hazardous tankers again

[StillGrande]

Last year, several members of the DC city council and the delegate to the US congress were trying to ban CSX from hauling hazardous chemicals through the district (4 blocks from the White House). They site the worst case scenario of a derailment during the 4th of July downtown which could kill 100,000 people. They brought all this up last year, and then CSX derailed a MOW train in the district. The NS wreck has the same players up in arms again.

I'm not sure where they think these cars are going to go. CSX is already voluntarily routing most of this stuff around the district already.

The thing that is if they can pull this off, who is next. And exactly which towns are okay to "put at risk"? How big do you have to be to get a ban?

Here is the article from today's post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64224-2005Jan10.html

It is also interesting that the persons most concerned seem to be the ones living furthest from the tracks. The Councilwoman pushing this represents the more affluent section of the city.

[mudchicken]

Unless there is a federal/ FRA/NTSB ruling somewhere, this has zero likelyhood of happening. Interstate Commerce will trump local knee-jerk decisions every time. They need to be more worried about the truckers (in terms of accident potential) anyhow. CSX appears already to be helping where it can. Ain't hysteria fun?

[StillGrande]

They say if the Feds won't do something this time, they will pass an ordinance. It will be fun to see the cops trying to a) determine if a car has hazardous materials on it and then b) pull it over before it is out of the district.

The Feds squashed this the last time.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm not sure where this can go because of the unique status of the District of Columbia but ordinances of this nature in other locations are unconstitutional since they are considered state regulation of interstate commerce.

[Anonymous]

Would they rather the tankers be traveling along the highway?

That last thing this world needs is more truck traffic, let alone Dangerous Goods Traffic.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I am not surprised at this. The DC City Coucil's rationale for the ban on hazardous materials moving through the DC by rail is the close proximity of the tracks to the Capitol and other federal office buildings would disrupt Congress and the federal government if a leak occurred. There might be some logic in that argument BUT. The DC City Council would be stupid to pass such legislation because it interferes with interstate commerce, it cannot be enforced, it could be preempted by the FRA, or overturned in a court test.

What about shipping hazardous material by rail through other larger cities such as Philadelphia or Chicago. A leak would put more people at risk.

If the ban on shipping hazardous material through the DC is upheld the cars would have to take a circuitous route, and the transit time would be increase thus increasing the hazard.

[Anonymous]

Transit time = money. If DC cannot get the chemicals it needs to work daily (Ammonia for cold storage, newsprint ink etc etc) then the businesses will go where the chemicals go.

As important as DC is, they should thank god they are not Bayonne NJ. That place is FULL of chemicals and much more important to the country. If there is a problem there prevailing winds would require NYC to be evactuated. (10 million)

The federal govt has been disrupted in the past and somehow staggered on... Even if Congress got gassed and the leadership choked.. there are people who are on lists kept just for this problem and can convene a new government within a day or two in a secure location.

If DC wants to ban it, let em. Then they will probably either see the industry truck it in or... move somewhere else that is more friendly to being able to access rail/road hazmat traffic.

DC would be better off applying the passion and energy as well as funds in IMPROVING first response to potential chemical problems in thier area. Instead of wasting energy, time and money trying to stop something that has been in the area for decades.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Transit time = money. If DC cannot get the chemicals it needs to work daily (Ammonia for cold storage, newsprint ink etc etc) then the businesses will go where the chemicals go.

As important as DC is, they should thank god they are not Bayonne NJ. That place is FULL of chemicals and much more important to the country. If there is a problem there prevailing winds would require NYC to be evactuated. (10 million)

The federal govt has been disrupted in the past and somehow staggered on... Even if Congress got gassed and the leadership choked.. there are people who are on lists kept just for this problem and can convene a new government within a day or two in a secure location.

If DC wants to ban it, let em. Then they will probably either see the industry truck it in or... move somewhere else that is more friendly to being able to access rail/road hazmat traffic.

DC would be better off applying the passion and energy as well as funds in IMPROVING first response to potential chemical problems in thier area. Instead of wasting energy, time and money trying to stop something that has been in the area for decades.

It's not that the chemicals are bound for the DC. There is very little industry in the DC. Those chemicals are probably being shipped from somewhere in the Northeast to somewhere in the Southeast, perhaps in North Carolina, so the fastet and the shortest route is CSX via Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond. In fact, Washington's wastewater treatment plant used to get its chemicals by rail, and if you ever took a look at the track - which went through an Air Force Base, a Navy housing area, and a Navy lab - its wavy condition could scare you half to death. I agree the people in Washington should be thankful they do not live near a chemical plant.

[Junctionfan]

Just make sure the tracks and equipment is safe. Banning the chemicals is only cause economic problems and is unnecessary and evasive. If the rails and equipment are safe (including security on the tracks), even nuclear weapons moves will be safe.

[bobwilcox]

I think the DC politicians know they do not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They want to look good on TV for their voters.

[Justicar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9113-2005Feb8.html?sub=new

Railroad Challenges D.C. Over Hazmats
CSX Asks U.S. To Lift Embargo

By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page B01

CSX Corp. is challenging the District's 90-day ban on railroad shipments of hazardous materials that pass through the city, arguing that it is an unconstitutional restriction of interstate commerce.

The railroad company has asked the federal Surface Transportation Board to suspend the ban. The board, a quasi-independent regulatory board charged with resolving rate and service disputes, is the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The action could be the precursor to lengthy and expensive legal wrangling. Robert J. Spagnoletti, attorney general for the District, told the D.C. Council yesterday he was already planning an "aggressive battle" to defend the ban against administrative and legal challenges. It will take more money, he said, because his department has allocated its $4 million litigation budget.

Proponents of the ban, including Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) and a majority of the D.C. Council, say it is necessary to protect the nation's capital from terrorism.

"I think that it should play out through the system," Williams said yesterday, referring to the legal challenge. "I believe we need to protect our people, and I believe this gets an important issue on the agenda nationally."

Opponents say the legal challenge is precisely what they predicted.

"It took exactly a week for the real issue of the cost to come up," said council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large). She voted against the ban and had argued that railroad and federal officials had voluntarily rerouted hazardous rail cargo. She said the cost of the legal fight should have been considered as a fiscal impact when the council considered the ban.

A CSX rail line in the District moves 8,500 chemical cars a year through the city, though only a fraction of those chemicals are toxic when inhaled. The legislation bans the most dangerous materials, including certain classes of explosives, flammable gases and poisonous gases and materials. It also requires all rail and truck firms carrying other hazardous materials to obtain permits from the city's Department of Transportation.

In its filing, CSX acknowledged that since last spring, it has voluntarily rerouted shipments of hazardous materials that usually travel through the city on its Interstate 95 line and continues to confer with federal homeland security officials on that and other security measures.

At the same time, the CSX filing argues that carrying out the District's ban would cause great inefficiencies and hardship on its rail network while creating little additional security. The railroad said rerouting would require sending the materials west of the Appalachian Mountains through Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio.

"I guess two different people were writing it: one who said they are already doing [the ban] and another who said it was impossible to do," said council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3).

The Transportation Security Administration last year conducted a security study and hazardous material response plan for 42 miles of rail corridor in the Washington area. It is implementing a $7 million long-term plan for low-tech measures such as fencing and added patrols and other safeguards, including intrusion-detection systems and video surveillance.

Staff writer Lori Montgomery contributed to this report.