(The following article by Tyler Pearson was circulated by CBS Market Watch on April 25.)
WASHINGTON — Thursday’s railway explosion in North Korea and the terrorist attacks in Madrid last month have officials turning a critical eye to safety and security on the U.S. rail network.
Are the rails truly safe to ride?
Each year, there are about 2 million hazardous material rail shipments in the U.S., according to the Federal Railroad Administration. Each of these shipments could kill thousands of U.S. residents if there were an accident or a terrorist attack.
“Ten bombs in Madrid killed a total of 200 people,” said Fred Millar, a transportation consultant. “Just one chlorine tanker car, if released over a crowded event, can produce a cloud that will kill 100,000 people in an hour.”
What’s worse, a National Transportation Safety Board study said that more than half the 60,000 railroad tank cars carrying hazardous materials don’t meet current industry safety standards and may rupture if the trains derailed.
Tankers and terrorists
“It’s not even about accidents,” says Rick Hind, a legislative director with Greenpeace. “What if terrorists get a hold of one of those tankers?”
The Department of Homeland Security initiated a series of safety procedures after the Madrid train bombings on March 11 designed to reduce the vulnerability of mass transportation. The steps included constructing barriers, training hazardous materials crews and increasing bomb detection sweeps.
Homeland Security designated the Transportation Security Administration as the lead agency to deal with hazardous material on U.S. railways. But many advocacy and environmental groups have criticized the TSA for doing little to secure the network.
Current routes lead trains containing hazardous material within four blocks of the U.S. Capitol. Advocacy groups say an accident or terrorist attack on this line could cripple the country, and would dwarf what happened in Spain.
“It makes no sense to bring freight cars into a passenger system,” says Millar, the transportation consultant.
For its part, the Federal Railroad Administration contends the rail system is safe.
“Out of nearly 2 million hazardous material shipments on rail there were only 24 incidents,” says Steve Kulm, a spokesman for the group. “We have a very excellent safety record.”
Greenpeace’s Hind said one particular track that runs near the Capitol carries 8,500 hazardous materials cars each year. Earlier this month, Hind sent a letter to the TSA asking for an immediate ban on hazardous materials going through Washington.
“The failure to prevent this kind of attack is unacceptable,” Hind said in the letter. “This approach flies in the face of very thing we learned about Sept. 11 and more recently on March 11 in the Madrid rail attacks.”
It’s of concern to the TSA’s acting administrator, David Stone.
“I want to assure you that reducing such dangers to heavily populated areas is one of our priority security focuses,” Stone said in response to Hind’s letter. Stone said the administration is working with chemical companies and shippers on the issue.
The U. S. General Accounting Office has also acknowledged the risks. A study released last month found many spots were vulnerable to terrorist attack.
“Freight railroads transport millions of tons of hazardous materials each year across the United States, raising concerns about the vulnerability of these shipments to terrorist attack,” the report said. The GAO says passenger and freight rail providers have assessed the risks, conducted emergency drills and developed security plans.
The American Chemistry Council said its 140 chemical-company members participate in the largest voluntary health and safety program in American industry, dubbed Responsible Care.
“Our members are doing the right thing,” said Marty Durbin, security team leader for the council.
Chemistry Council members use a system that helps companies comply with safety standards and track shipments. But a report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says that’s not enough.
“It’s no mystery, voluntary programs don’t work,” said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for U.S. PIRG. The report criticized the Bush administration for failing to implement something stronger than voluntary programs.
Legislative moves
In 2002 Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., introduced legislation to combat against terrorist attacks on hazardous chemical facilities and tankers. But he says the bill is “dead in the water” due to President Bush’s support for more lenient, voluntary regulations. A similar bill was unsuccessful in the House of Representatives.
“This is a real danger in regards to dealing with the war on terror,” Corzine said. “I think it’s irresponsible that we aren’t taking the effort to identify the risks.”
The bill would raise security levels around volatile chemicals to that of a nuclear power plant. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2002 that there are serious security risks at chemical facilities.
“We have a very diversified economy and our enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets,” Ridge said at that time. “And clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them.”
Sen. James Inhofe, R- Okla., sponsored a bill that would stress voluntary standards, but Corzine says it wouldn’t hold chemical companies accountable.
“We don’t have to look very far to see that this can lead to tragedy,” Corzine said. “One day we will pass legislation, but unfortunately it will likely be after a tragedy.”