Please, Don’t Help Us

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Thursday’s railroad accident resulting in a chlorine spill in Graniteville, South Carolina, that resulted in 8 dead, hundreds injured and evacuation of a town of 5,000 (I found it over at Confined Space).

Jordan at Confined Space also draws our attention to a story back in October 2004 stating that, despite the heightened post 9-11 awareness of hazardous materials transport, the railroad industry has resisted efforts by the government to re-route hazardous materials rail transport around densely populated areas. In particular, the Bush administration has rebuffed efforts by the District of Columbia city council to implement measures that would require railroads to re-route hazardous materials shipments around populated areas, or at least provide vulnerability assessments and notifications for shipments. Instead, the federal government favors voluntary measures worked out in cooperation with the industry.

As reported in Govexec.com, the latest concrete sign of progress of the effort to secure hazardous materials shipments was a notice that appeared in the Federal Register in August 2004. The Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Homeland Security (DHS) published the notice to solicit comments on the feasibility of steps to reduce the risk posed by shipments of substances that are toxic by inhalation. The notice is 8 pages long, densely worded and a hard read. An interesting way to cut to the chase though is to go the e-docket and look at the comments (look for Docket No. 18730 by the RPSA – Research and Special Projects Administration of the DOT; use the “advanced search” feature).

Amidst all of the pleas from industries not to place any further requirements on them, you find some gems, including comments from the states of West Virginia and California, who note that the DOT/DHS measures include a proposal to remove hazardous material placards from commercial transportation carriers, because these create the potential for use by terrorists to identify hazardous materials as potential weapons. The states rightly point out the difficulties created for first responders in managing hazardous materials incidents, as well as the health and safety risks created for those same first responders. Comments by the International Association of Emergency Managers emphasize the need to be able to see hazmat placards from a safe distance and initiate appropriate response actions when necessary. Initiating emergency sheltering-in-place or evacuation procedures for the public and avoiding unprotected responder exposure has saved lives and avoided injuries; failing to initiate these actions appropriately has caused deaths and injuries. The IEM comments acknowledged that protecting the public from the effects of terrorist actions is a real need, but stressed that changes to procedures related to hazmat placards must consider the potential for a greater negative impact on the public from the more likely events of a hazardous materials incident.

Am I reading this right? Our federal government is proposing steps that would actually increase risks to the public from hazardous materials incidents, in an effort to reduce the much rarer risk of a terrorist incident?