D.C. Hazmat Ban Talks Fail as CSX Rejects Judge’s Deal
ASHINGTON — Talks aimed at resolving the CSX Transportation challenge to a city government’s law restricting hazardous materials shipments failed Thursday when the railroad refused to agree to a settlement a federal judge attempted to arrange.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he was “disappointed that CSX would not agree to the court’s proposal for a 30-day period to further settlement talks” on the dispute between Washington, D.C., and the federal government. The city would have suspended its ban during that period.
But in court April 7 here, CSX attorney Mary Gay Sprague said, “we do not believe settlement discussions will be productive and indeed we do not think CSX can settle the federal-local dispute about who makes decisions about rail routing.”
“There would be no point to local law if the plan that is in place by the federal government ensures the security of the District,” Hughes said.
CSX, joined by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Surface Transportation Board, has challenged the city’s legal authority to ban dangerous hazmat shipments through a part of the city close to the U.S. Capitol building. They argued that federal law pre-empts the city’s authority to restrict the shipments.
Earlier, the Washington Post reported that Judge Sullivan had called on the Justice Department to tell the city what plans the federal government had to protect the nation’s capital in the event of an attack by terrorists using hazmats carried in rail cars.
In a hearing on the CSX suit last month, D.C. officials said the city’s law was needed because the federal government was not protecting the city against potential terrorist attacks. However, federal officials had testified that the U.S. government did have a plan to protect the city — but could not reveal it.
The Post said federal officials had briefed Judge Sullivan on their hazmat security plans, and Sullivan said, “I can settle the case, but I can’t do it alone.”
“There is no way I can broker this deal if the District is left totally in the dark about what the federal government is doing,” the Washington Post quoted the judge. “They have to know what I know.”
Meanwhile, George Valentine, D.C. deputy attorney general, told TT April 7 that the city government had delayed implementation of its law until April 20. It had been scheduled to go into effect April 11.
Hughes told TT that when the ban was implemented, “it would include a ban on shipments by truck” as well as by railroad.
Vincent Morris, spokesman for D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, said the mayor was pleased that the judge has asked the federal government to work with the city.
“We think that is a real positive development because we haven’t seen a lot of cooperation from the federal government,” Morris said. “If [the judge’s] compromise can accomplish that, we’re open to it.”
The ongoing litigation, along with a declaratory order issued by the Surface Transportation Board last month apply primarily to rail transportation, but ATA is seeking a separate ruling from the DOT that the city law is not valid.
“We continue to believe that the law authorizing these regulations is illegal and D.C. acted beyond its authority and that the regulations, as well as the law, should be invalidated,” ATA Regulatory Counsel Richard Moskowitz said.
Cliff Harvison, president of the National Tank Truck Carriers, said the delay was a positive step, but he remained concerned about the case.
“While I’m somewhat mollified by the delay, I’m still disturbed by the path that the court appears to be taking,” Harvison said. “To me, the legal issues and the law are clear that the D.C. government is prohibited by federal law from imposing any of these restrictions, regardless of mode.
“While I appreciate the court’s concern for security matters, I believe that until federal law is amended, the law trumps the court’s concerns,” he said.
This article appears in the April 11 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.
