Rail ban could increase danger

Suzanne Struglinski

Friday, Oct. 21, 2005 | 7:09 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Banning hazardous materials on certain rail routes would not eliminate any risks and could cause more problems, a railroad expert told a Senate panel Thursday.

A train loaded with chlorine or another hazardous chemical is an attractive terrorist target and poses a great safety risk even without the terrorist threat, some cities' officials believe. The fear has prompted bans of certain materials on certain routes.

Las Vegas has an ordinance banning nuclear waste shipments. But four cities -- Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland and Chicago -- have introduced ordinances banning more common hazardous waste shipments. The District of Columbia has already passed such a ban, but because of a legal challenge shipments can still take place for now.

Advocates of hazardous waste bans are trying to recruit Las Vegas to introduce its own as well.

But if the bans pass, they won't do much good, Association of American Railroads President Edward Hamberger told the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday.

"The proposals may be well intended, but the end result of their enactment would likely be an increase in exposure to hazmat release -- and reduced safety and security," Hamberger said.

He said 1.7 million carloads of hazardous material are moved via rail in the United States each year, and "99.998 percent of these shipments reach their destination without a release caused by an accident."

"Banning hazmat movements in particular jurisdictions would not eliminate risks, but instead would simply shift them from one place to another," he said. "In shifting that risk, it could foreclose transportation routes that are optimal in terms of overall safety, security and efficiency."

Rerouting shipments could add hundreds of miles and additional days to a shipment, he said. Emergency personnel along the new routes may not have had as much training as those on the previous routes.

"Banning hazmat shipments in even one city would be problematic; banning them in cities throughout the country would cause immense confusion and economic disruption nationwide and would virtually shut down hazmat shipments by rail in this country," Hamberger testified.

Nuclear waste that could go to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is not classified as "hazardous material." Radioactive waste has its own rules, partly governed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a division of the Transportation Department.

During the nearly two-hour hearing, the potential cross-country shipments of waste to Yucca did not come up.

Hamberger called hazmat shipments a "bet the farm" situation for railroad companies, meaning that if an accident occurred, it would be devastating to the railroad industry.

After the hearing, he said moving used nuclear fuel would not fall into that same category.

"If there were to be a breach, it does not have the same consequence," he said. "There is no plume, and the immediate impact is not as great."

Suzanne Struglinski can be reached at (202) 662-7245 or at suzanne@ lasvegassun.com.