|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
City Council Passes Washington Chlorine-Train Ban By Joe Fiorill WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia Council yesterday approved emergency legislation to ban rail and truck shipments of large amounts of chlorine and other toxic materials through the city (see GSN, Jan. 31). The bill is “the first in the nation to prohibit the transport of ultrahazardous substances by rail or truck through a city or state for security reasons,” according to a Greenpeace statement issued yesterday. It applies to gases in the U.S. Transportation Department’s top two categories of toxicity, when transported in quantities of at least 500 kilograms. The measure’s passage follows more than a year of intense debate on the council about whether to formally prohibit shipments that rail operator CSX last year told council members it was already diverting voluntarily (see GSN, Jan. 12). Central to the panel’s deliberations was the possibility of a terrorist attack on a chlorine-filled rail tanker passing through central Washington, which experts have said could create a toxic cloud capable of killing thousands of people within minutes. “The action taken today by this council vastly reduces the most serious threat to the residents of the District of Columbia and surrounding jurisdictions,” bill sponsor Kathy Patterson said in a statement after yesterday’s voice vote. “We are one of the two top target cities for terrorist attacks and have to do everything in our power to prevent terrorist attacks.” The emergency plan would become law for a period of 90 days if signed by Mayor Anthony Williams, who has promised to approve the measure. Patterson and co-sponsor Phil Mendelson also plan a permanent version of the bill. Such legislation could face hurdles in the council’s Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by ban opponent Carol Schwartz, and in a federal review that would take place after passage by the council. The council yesterday granted initial approval to a temporary version of the permanent bill that, unless scuttled by the U.S. Congress during a mandatory review period, would add 225 days to the 90-day ban enacted under the emergency bill. The temporary version must undergo a second reading by the council, probably next month, before it is passed on to the mayor and the congressional review period begins. In an interview yesterday after the vote, Patterson expressed confidence that the shipments would be legally banned for the 315 days provided for under the emergency and temporary bills, during which time she vowed to work toward a permanent measure that Schwartz would support. If no such solution was reached, Patterson said, a simple majority of the council could move to bypass Schwartz. With 12 of the council’s 13 members present yesterday, only Schwartz — who has consistently opposed a legislated ban but has worked with CSX and the federal Homeland Security Department to secure voluntary rerouting — voted against the measure. Councilman David Catania recused himself because of ties to a law firm that works for CSX. Schwartz has repeatedly expressed concern, providing little elaboration of her fears, that passing a formal ban could ultimately backfire. She has linked her wariness to the federal government’s power to override the capital city’s laws and to the possibility that the ban could be deemed an unconstitutional hindrance of interstate commerce. “In this case, I believe that we are better served by cooperating with the feds, rather than confronting them,” Schwartz told council members just before the vote. “Trains carrying hazardous materials described … are [already] being rerouted away from the District of Columbia.” The Homeland Security Department took a similar position. “The spirit of today’s legislation,” spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich said in an interview after yesterday’s vote, “is already being met through our long-term partnership with CSX and our other private-sector partners.” Petrovich would not comment on whether the federal government would seek to challenge the legislation. Bill supporters have also evoked the possibility that CSX could take legal action seeking to prevent or delay the bill’s implementation. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they file for a temporary restraining order,” Patterson said yesterday. Company spokesman Bob Sullivan said “CSX is actively reviewing the council measure and will take all appropriate steps when that review is complete.” Asked what such steps might include, he said possibilities included legal action against the city, as well as other options he would not identify. “Today’s action by the District of Columbia does not increase safety or security at all. In fact, it compromises it,” Sullivan said today in an interview. “The unfortunate end result of today’s actions by the District of Columbia Council would be to drive more of these materials to trucks by frustrating the efforts of railroads to move materials in ways that are safe, secure and efficient. Railroads are 16 times safer than trucks for moving these materials,” Sullivan said. Ban supporters have expressed doubts in recent days about whether CSX has continued to reroute the chemical shipments around the city. Patterson said last week that when CSX revealed its voluntary measures to council members at a closed-door November 2004 briefing, the company described the operation as “temporary.” She said there is no way to know whether the rerouting has continued since the briefing. That uncertainty, Mendelson said yesterday in introducing the bill, makes legislative action necessary. “With this legislation, we are assured, because it will be the law — because there will be the ability to enforce. There will be a law to enforce,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
