As rail industry lobbies against safety bill, two trains derail in Arizona and Washington
Two trains operated by BNSF derailed in Washington state and Arizona on Thursday as the rail industry and its Republican allies in Congress fight bipartisan safety legislation introduced in the wake of the toxic crash in East Palestine, Ohio.
The Associated Pressreported that the Washington derailment spilled 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel on tribal lands along Padilla Bay. State authorities said the fuel spill does not appear to have flowed toward the water—though such an assurance is cold comfort amid the disaster in eastern Ohio, where residents' concerns about the long-term impacts of the wreck on local water, soil, and air quality remain high more than a month after the crash.
In Arizona, eight BNSF train cars derailed Thursday near the state's border with California and Nevada, though it's unclear whether any spills occurred. The crash reportedly involved a train carrying corn syrup.
More than 1,000 trains derail in the United States each year, but the Norfolk Southern disaster in East Palestine has brought greater scrutiny to the industry's dangerous cost-cutting and lax safety practices—turning wrecks that would typically be consigned to local news coverage into national headlines.
With each derailment since early February, calls for substantive action in Congress to rein in the powerful industry have grown louder.
Under pressure from rail workers and others, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation earlier this month that would impose stronger regulations on trains carrying hazardous materials—an effort that rail industry lobbying has defeated in the past.
While rail unions welcomed some provisions of the bill as decent starting points, they warned the measure has major loopholes and exceptions that rail giants wouldn't hesitate to exploit.
"If the language is not precise, the Class 1 railroads will avoid the scope of the law without violating the law, yet again putting the safety of our members and American communities into harm's way," said Eddie Hall, national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. "You can run a freight train through the loopholes."
Predictably, the rail industry is working to further water down the legislation or kill it entirely, pumping donations to Republican allies and running ads in major media outlets touting its supposedly ironclad commitment to safety.
Sludge's David Moore reported earlier this week that the PAC for Union Pacific—one of the largest Class 1 railroads in the U.S.—"made $15,000 in contributions last month, all to Republicans in the House and Senate, given less than two weeks after the Ohio derailment."
"Several House Republicans on committees that oversee transportation have sought to delay the bipartisan legislation to boost rail safety rules," Moore noted, "saying more information is needed after a potentially-lengthy study."
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, parroted industry talking points earlier this month when making the case against regulatory action, saying U.S. railroads have a "very high success rate of moving hazardous material—to the point of 99-percent-plus."
Days before Nehls' comment, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) declared in an ad appearing in a Politico newsletter that "while 99.9 percent of all hazmat shipments that move by rail reach their destination safely, we know a single incident can have significant impacts."
The AAR has dismissed demands for comprehensive rail safety reforms as "political.
In the Senate, meanwhile, John Thune (R-S.D.)—a former registered rail lobbyist—has emerged as a potentially key opponent of rail safety legislation, tellingThe Hill earlier this month that "we'll take a look at what's being proposed, but an immediate quick response heavy on regulation needs to be thoughtful and targeted."
During congressional testimony last week, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw refused to endorse the bipartisan Railway Safety Act, another indication that rail giants will continue their longstanding opposition to popular regulatory changes.
Over the past two decades, according to a recent OpenSecrets analysis, the rail industry has spent more than $650 million on federal lobbying.
"The longer we wait to act on rail safety, the deeper the railroad industry can dig in their claws and lobby against progress," Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), a lead sponsor of separate rail safety legislation, warned Thursday.
The development of ECP brakes began in the early 1990s, with tests collaboratively conducted by the Association of American Railroads, an industry trade group that represents the largest rail companies, and the Federal Railroad Administration. ECP uses electronic controls to instantaneously apply air-powered brakes uniformly across the length of a train. Studies have shown the brakes can shorten stopping distances by up to 60 percent.
Initially, the rail industry hailed the new development, touting the brakes as a safe way to transport nuclear waste, as DeSmogBlog has documented.
“ECP brakes are to trains what anti-lock brakes are to automobiles — they provide better control,” Joseph Boardman, President George W. Bush’s FRA administrator, exclaimed in 2006. The agency hired consultants to study the braking system, who concluded that they provided “major benefits in freight train handling, car maintenance, fuel savings, and network capacity” that could “significantly enhance rail safety and efficiency.”
By May 2015, when the Obama administration issued its rule following a number of oil train accidents, the industry coalesced in opposition.
The rail, oil, and chemical industries — including trade groups such as the Association of American Railroads — filed opposition, citing costs, to the Obama administration. The organizations also filed a lawsuit in administrative court and brought an appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit, attempting to overturn the rule. The challenge was mitigated, however, by the Thune legislation that pushed back the implementation.
In 2015 alone, Norfolk Southern retained 47 federal lobbyists and focused on fighting against ECP regulation.
In 2015 alone, Norfolk Southern retained 47 federal lobbyists and focused on fighting against ECP regulation. The company disclosed that it “opposed additional speed limitations and requiring ECP brakes.” Other rail giants, including BNSF and CSX, deployed lobbyists on the regulations as well, records show.
The Association of American Railroads bought online advertising against the rule, and also mobilized its considerable political influence against the rule and in support of Thune’s legislative efforts to undermine it.
Tax records show the rail industry, while it pushed back against the electronic braking requirement, funneled money to nonprofit groups close to legislators, including the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, and the Republican Main Street Partnership.
After the rule was eventually repealed, meeting notes from Trump administration Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao show a scheduled call with Carl Ice, then president and CEO of BNSF Railway, for him to “thank her for ECP.”
Critics of the rail industry in recent days have pointed out that Norfolk Southern paid out $18 billion in stock buybacks and dividends over the last five years, an amount that eclipses the money spent on railway operations and safety.
Other questions remain about safety regulations that could have prevented the East Palestine disaster. The company once employed five senior engineers who specialized in maintaining detectors that prevent derailments. As Freight Waves, an industry outlet, has reported, Norfolk Southern recently eliminated these positions and has lobbied against rules that required railroads to conduct brake tests on rail cars that had not operated for four or more hours.
The Obama-era railroad regulations also included a rule to use freight cars made of special reinforced materials for the transport of oil and hazardous materials, as the New York Times reported. Of the freight cars that derailed earlier this month, three were of the stronger type and were not breached, while one of the freight cars carrying propylene glycol that did not have the enhanced protections was breached.
IN A SPIRITED exchange nearly eight years ago, Sen. John Thune scoffed at his committee colleagues when they raised concerns that legislation he sponsored would add years of delay for train safety regulations.
At issue was a bill proposed by the South Dakota Republican designed to push back the deadline for the implementation of electronically controlled pneumatic, or ECP, brakes on rail cars carrying oil or other hazardous liquids. The legislation required years of study and new rulemaking.
Thune argued that the technology was untested and that he simply wanted more data before moving ahead with the mandate for electronically controlled brakes, which had been issued in early 2015, during the Obama administration. At the time, the rail industry was booming as it transported fracked oil from North Dakota oil fields.
During the ensuing debate in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., pointed to the increasing frequency of trains carrying highly flammable oil. “For a state that sees three trains now, and will see as many as fifteen on a weekly basis, this is a lot of activity that goes through every major city in our state,” said Cantwell, who called the safety regulations “critical.”
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., noted the explosion of CSX rail cars in his state earlier that year, which caused 100-yard-high flames and one injury. “If my derailment would have happened two miles down the track, it would blow up the whole town, lost a whole town. It happened outside. It’s unbelievable we had no loss of life.”
Thune — the former South Dakota railroad director, a close ally of the rail industry, and one of the largest recipients of railroad corporation campaign donations in Congress — was unmoved. “I would pledge to Senator Manchin and my colleagues that there’s nothing in the underlying ECP provision that’s intended to scuttle the adoption of this,” the South Dakota lawmaker replied, referring to the vote on legislation containing the language delaying the safety rule.
Thune voted down a Democratic amendment to nix the delay before moving to a full committee vote. His Senate office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
