Cheap Journalism

Intrepid Trib reporter Carl Prine does his best to scare Pittsburghers with his imitation of "24" - by "showing" how easy it is to get near a train car that might be filled with (gasp) hazardous chemicals! (music cue - duhn duhn dahhhhhh). It's "Terror on the Tracks."

Let's say the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter really was a terrorist.

What if those were bombs he was placing on the chemical placard of a rail car inside the Thatcher Chemical Co. plant in suburban Las Vegas, and not his business cards?

Instead of a camera recording lax security over some of the deadliest chemicals ever produced, he held a detonator? And the string of chlorine gas cars trundling down Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the heart of Vegas was his prey?

If he was a terrorist, and his goal was to release a potentially catastrophic cloud of deadly gases, explosives and caustic acids -- in unguarded cars, left abandoned -- then a U.S. Department of Homeland Security's planning scenario might apply: 17,500 people dead, another 10,000 suffering injuries and 100,000 more flooding trauma wards, convinced they've been poisoned. The environmental damage would take weeks to clean up, forcing the evacuation of as many as 70,000 residents from a city built on sin, military might and heavy industry.

Less detailed and unlikely "Worst Case Scenario" plans filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggest the gases that could be released by the reporter perched atop millions of pounds of zinc chloride, phosphoric and sulfuric acids, and chlorine gas could drift 18 miles and threaten 1.1 million people with death, displacement or injury.

But, luckily, he was only a reporter.

Lucky us. I find reporters some of the most dangerous individuals on earth, largely due to their inability to think logically, research issues intelligently, and coherently express a critical thought. I have no doubt that security along the nation's rail lines is less than fully adequate to stop a determined individual from placing an explosive on a rail car. What I doubt is that 1) the timing will be possible so that the chemical release optimally affects the maximum amount of people downwind of the incident; 2) that there will be enough chemicals (more than one rail car, certainly) to really cause a mass casualty event, and 3) that our emergency responders are inadequate to get most individuals to safety. Past train hazmat accidents have been managable, even multi-car burners.

Despite the problems that this reporter discovered, we haven't had any terrorist-related train hazmat incidents. While this issue remains a very popular one about which politicians can preach, there are no easy answers here. If you shuttle trains to go around major cities, the trains will be riding on less maintained (and therefore, less safe) tracks. If you force the chemical industry to use other alternative chemicals because they are less hazardous, the cost of manufacturing will skyrocket. If you increase security inspections of railyards and force the employees to undergo background investigations, who's going to pay for all of this additional bureaucracy?

You can, however, insist upon proper risk management principles - focusing on the real threats and significant increases in safety. More training for rail yard managers and exercises for emergency responders is always good. Strengthen the rails in the lines, ensure the conductors are communicating constantly with the controllers. Determine probable impacts of incidents instead of basing resource requests on worst case scenarios. But it's not important to ask for meaningful analysis and thoughtful conclusions. This reporter has to make a name for himself.  After all, all those "60 Minutes" reporters are dying off and retiring. They might need this young reporter in their ranks.

Comments

[Robot.Economist]

Did this reporter check to see if the business cards he so neatly tucked away on those traincars were still there when they reached their destination?

Train companies require their conductors to inspect hazardous chemical cars before they begin moving. Ostensibly, it is to check for container leaks, but I doubt they would miss most types of bombs.

Things aren't as bleak as this report may think.

[James]

Agreed. Brainless threat-mongering. Rail cars derail all the time, sometimes in populated areas, with minimal trouble. The fact is, this is probably one of the few "threats" the local and federal authorities are really ready to handle, simply because it's happened before.

Did the reporter pause to reflect on the weight differential between explosives and business cards? Does he know how much explosive it would take to puncture each tank or how big a hole it would make? Carrying a camera down along the tracks isn't going to get you busted by the railway cops, but a big satchel would.

When you get right down to it, most of those materials are carried to their final destination by truck, and trucks are much more accessible than railcars. They stop at every traffic light, and most densely populated areas have a lot of traffic lights.

[George 3]

I am not a lawyer but I have read that current law requires railroads to carry hazardous materials on their systems because they are classified as common carriers. I also think the law restricts the right of local governments to regulate railroad traffic, I think this contradicts some recent court decisions. Local judges strike me as subject to political pressure.

Since 911 people have been arrested or had their cameras confiscated for photographing trains from public property as well as from railroad rights of way.

At least one railroad tank car manufacturer is currently introducing a more damage
resistant tank car for hazardous chemicals.

I have always imagined it would be possible to make trenches and barriers so spills could be defected from areas with high population densities. This could be done in emergencies by military or local civil engineering assets with some prior planning or it accomplished in advance through urban corridors.

[James]

George: I have no doubt you are correct about people being arrested or having cameras seized. The photographers remain in the right, however. There are no US restrictions on the photography of buildings or transportation sites with the exception, I believe, of airports. Some buildings are under "copyright" restrictions, however, and private companies can make their own rules on their own property.

Many police and security guards assume things in the law that don't exist, or simply harass photographers because of misguided ideas about it being better to be "safe than sorry." But the law is quite clear on this point and some photography magazines have taken the trouble to make downloadable "talking points" amateur photographers can carry with them is the event of a confrontation.

http://tinyurl.com/z6hvv

That having been said, once the journalist stepped onto the railroad tracks he was trespassing and could have been arrested. But I walk along railroad tracks all the time and the law is rarely enforced, on the grounds of risk-management. It just isn't worth the effort given the very slight risk of someone trying to put a bomb on a rail car that is just as likely to be empty as full. Did the reporter consider the possibility that there was "no security" there because the cars were empty? Did he ask anyone?