By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Railroad companies are pressing federal regulators to cut back on trains carrying hazardous materials through urban areas, saying they fear a catastrophic release of toxic chemicals in a large city.
The companies also fear billions in legal claims if toxic materials spill during a derailment or act of sabotage. Rail industry associations are petitioning to allow railroads for the first time to refuse to carry chemicals such as chlorine over long distances.
Federal law requires railroads to transport such materials, which are used in manufacturing, agriculture and water treatment.
The companies’ move is opposed by the Obama administration and others who say railroads are the safest way to move toxic materials. If trucks end up carrying materials that railroads reject, “that would pose a much greater danger,” said Patricia Abbate of Citizens for Rail Safety, a Massachusetts advocacy group.
The railroad petition is the latest effort to address the danger posed by the 110,000 carloads of toxic chemicals rail companies carry each year. Navy researchers have said an attack on a chemical-carrying train could kill 100,000 people.
“We prefer not to ship this material at all,” said Patricia Reilly of the Association of American Railroads. Rail companies have pressed Congress for liability protection. The government has deemed rails as the safest way to move chemicals, Reilly said.
This year, Union Pacific refused to carry chlorine from a plant in Utah to Texas and Louisiana. Rail cars would pass through Salt Lake City, Kansas City and Fort Worth, exposing millions of people to “remote but deadly risks,” the railroad said in a February petition filed with the Surface Transportation Board, which regulates railroads.
Union Pacific said the Texas and Louisiana plants could get chlorine from nearby suppliers. Other railroads and rail associations have urged the board to grant Union Pacific’s request to reject hazardous shipments if the materials are available from closer sources.
The railroad effort is opposed by chemical and fertilizer companies and associations, the Transportation Security Administration and the Transportation Department, which say new rules have improved rail safety. The TSA said shorter rail routes are not automatically safer than longer routes.
American Chemistry Council spokesman Scott Jensen said railroads “would effectively control the supply and demand” of materials if they could refuse to carry certain shipments. “That simply cannot be tolerated.” Environmental Risk Managers Notes: The rail industry is stating they are a dangerous way to ship hazardous materials. Government is saying rail is less dangerous than over the road. Bottom line, companies dealing with hazardous materials must have an environmental strategy in how they ship and receive hazardous materials.
How do companies working with Hazardous materials purchase them? Do they buy them FOB point of shipment or FOB point of delivery? The vast majority purchase their hazardous raw materials FOB point of shipment because it’s cheaper.
Companies purchasing hazardous materials FOB point of shipment own those materials once they leave the shipping facility. What’s your strategy should an accident occur involving hazardous materials you purchased FOB point of shipment? The rail companies fear a loss could put them out of business.
I suggest purchasing transportation pollution liability insurance that protects the insured for first and / or third party transportation pollution liability.