Today the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works will be holding a hearing aimed at “addressing the environmental and public health threats from the Norfolk Southern train derailment and chemical release in East Palestine, Ohio.” Based on the witness list, consisting mostly of lawmakers representing Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as executive branch officials, the topics of discussion ought to be straightforward.
It is quite understandable that Congress would want to sift through what is known about this accident so far (the hearing was called prior to a second derailment). At the same time, it is understandable to await the full, detailed findings of the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into this derailment prior to enacting any long-term policy responses … and the nation’s taxpayers certainly have a stake in those responses.
One immediate concern is the tendency to pile unrelated “solutions” onto legitimate safety measures. For example, it did not take long for the grievances between rail unions and management to resurface from last year’s averted strike threat. Even though the derailed train in East Palestine had more than one crewmember aboard it, some leapt to support minimum crew size requirements of two or more, a longstanding priority for organized labor. Others took shots at proven technologies like automated track inspection.
Yet, a few short years ago even the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) opined on the lack of evidence that single-person train crews compromise safety. Unfortunately, FRA erred in denying petitions to expand automated inspection, which works with, rather than against, human trackwalkers to enhance safety. And ironically, as the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation observed, rail workers have individually benefited from increased rail productivity and the economic activity it engenders.
Legislation called the Railway Safety Act has already been proposed in the Senate, enacting new safety standards but also taking unrelated steps such as crew-size minimums. While the bill may be well-intentioned, careful deliberation and focus on safety priorities is necessary going forward.
Without such balanced consideration, a key principle of the rail economy could be undermined: railroads must have the resources to continue private investment, and customers must be able to secure affordable, market-based shipping services. Without this synergy, taxpayers will witness another decline in one of the nation’s most vital infrastructure components, and with it, increased pressure for direct federal involvement through loans, subsidies, and other strictures.
NTU’s researchers have identified $29 million in taxpayer funding in the Rail Safety Act, a number that could very well go higher if the bill moves through hearings and Congressional floor action (think: additional federal bailout money for Amtrak, more resources for vague regulatory powers, and grants for longstanding pet projects).
Taxpayers could be disappointed if such a cost spiral were set into motion, given that freight rail, unlike many other modes of infrastructure, has since the Staggers Act of 1980 been financed largely by private rather than “public” investment (another reason why this sector has thrived while passenger rail has sputtered).
Taxpayers would likewise be concerned if the tragedy in East Palestine became a justification for massive new grants of power and money for EPA to overregulate chemical production and approvals. As NTU has written before, EPA’s chemical assessment programs have been plagued by managerial deficiencies, delays, and high costs. Taxpayers suffer not only direct lost dollars from these failures, but also indirect lost opportunities for savings. A sore-thumb standout NTU identified is EPA’s failing Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for chemicals:
One big stakeholder to all this is the taxpayer, who not only funds EPA’s $9 billion-plus budget, but who can also shell out more if the cost of government goods or services go up unnecessarily because of flawed regulations based on IRIS findings. Plastics used in health care equipment purchased by Medicaid, military trucks, and flooring materials used in government offices are just a few of hundreds of examples where IRIS missteps could induce regulators into banning or boosting the cost of substances that might actually be safe (and economical) to use.
There is plenty for policymakers to do in response to disaster in Ohio: focus on oversight of any federal recovery monies that may be eventually directed to East Palestine (a win-win for the affected community as well as taxpayers), examine robust but targeted responses to safety issues that are based on evidence, and avoid extraneous policies (as well as funding) for interests with axes to grind. Americans in East Palestine, and across the nation, deserve no less.