Senator wants fast action on rail safety
WASHINGTON — Government regulators are taking too long to write rail safety regulations in light of recent fiery oil train accidents and a deadly commuter train derailment, senators complained on Thursday.
Railroads are taking too long to implement safety improvements Congress ordered under legislation passed seven years ago, lawmakers said at a hearing before the Senate's surface transportation panel.
Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the panel's chairman, said he is “disappointed and disturbed by some of the delays and failures in rule-making and scrutiny.”
“One of the things we're going to do here is impose accountability,” he said.
Cynthia Quarterman, head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, said her agency is working as fast as possible to draft standards for tank cars used to transport crude. She said it takes time to address the more than 100,000 public comments the agency has received, as well as fulfill other requirements of the federal rule-making process.
The cars, known as DOT-111s, were involved in explosions and fires caused by derailments of oil trains near Casselton, N.D., in December and Lac-Megantic, Quebec, just across the Canadian border, in July.
On Feb. 13, 21 cars of a 130-car Norfolk Southern freight train derailed along First Avenue in Vandergrift, including one tanker car that careened into a building. No one was injured and none of the 18 tankers containing heavy crude oil or a tanker containing liquefied petroleum gas (butane) burst into flames or exploded during the derailment.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.