The Ohio Train Derailment: Scientist Questions EPA’s Handling of East Palestine Cleanup: ‘They Should Have Tested Correctly’

                             


Main Article: https://www.alleghenyfront.org/east-palestine-epa-cleanup-criticism-science/

Scientific Article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176056

    On February 3rd, 2023, in East Palestine, Ohio, a Norfolk Southern train carrying 38 rail cars derailed, with 11 of the rail cars containing hazardous materials. The derailment was linked to the overheating of the wheel bearings on the leading car. Incidents like this are a common occurrence, which is why bearing detectors are installed along the tracks to alert the driver before a train derails. Unfortunately, the alarm did not activate until the train reached East Palestine, where the overheated bearing’s axle failed. The crew did not have enough time to slow the train to a stop before it derailed, resulting in the crash. The most alarming chemical on this train was vinyl chloride, a highly flammable and toxic gas.

    Officials were worried that pressure was building up in the tanks, which could then lead to a violent, uncontrolled explosion. To prevent this, a vent and burn was performed: A last resort tactic to mitigate hazardous materials in an uncontrolled environment by creating holes in the rail cars and igniting the released compounds.

    After the vent and burn, concerns arose about the chemicals released and about how agencies responded to the disaster, the latter of which was the focus of the article. It discusses how the EPA downplayed the hazards while others, such as Dr. Andrew Whelton, a Purdue University environmental engineer, expressed serious worries about how the situation was handled.

    The author stated that the EPA claimed early on that contamination was contained to the derailment site, but according to Whelton, this was not the case. Whelton mentioned that the creeks surrounding the railsite, both upstream and downstream, were also contaminated. This was due to the main tool the EPA relied on for air monitoring, a photoionization detector (PID), which is a handheld device that provides quick readings of chemical concentrations in the air. However, the device cannot detect all of the chemicals involved in the spill, such as butyl acrylate, which is known to irritate the eyes, skin, and respiratory system. Despite this limitation, evacuation orders in the town were lifted based on the PID’s limited readings.

    The author then speaks about Whelton’s experience with emergency situations like this and discusses what Whelton believes is the main issue with how these events are handled. He emphasized the importance of knowing all the components involved before allowing people to return to their homes. He made this characterization using a Proton-Transfer Reaction Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (PTR-TOF-MS), which can provide a detailed profile in a short amount of time.


Figure 1. Schematic of the headspace sampling setup with the PTR-TOF-MS.

    The author then mentions the other method used to break up and release the chemicals into the waterways. Authorities aerated the contaminated water, releasing unknown vapors into the air without fully understanding what chemicals were present. Wheaton then emphasizes the importance of governmental agencies reaching out to external experts to help manage these situations, but this didn’t happen here.

    After interviewing the EPA response coordinator for East Palestine, he admitted they could have done better at addressing the situation. Though no fatalities were reported, the long-term health and environmental consequences remain uncertain, and the incident has become a cautionary example of the importance of comprehensive and transparent disaster response.

    The article did a great job at connecting the information from Whelton and describing it in a digestible format for non-scientist readers. Whelton was one of the authors on a paper by Jiang et al., which was done on this very site. The information left out of the research paper published on the matter was mainly the in-depth results they had collected.

    In the study, 20 water samples were collected from 16 different sites in East Palestine, starting from the deraliment site and reaching miles downstream, leading to the Ohio River. Hydrocarbons were the dominant chemical group in all of the water samples, accounting for 50 % to 97 % of the total VOCs found. Commonly detected compounds included benzene, xylene, and MTBE, with aqueous concentrations generally found at ng/L levels. Additionally, it was noted that the samples were taken 24 to 51 days post-train derailment, meaning the reported results may not accurately represent the water's composition immediately following the chemical spill, as both the vent and burn and the aerated water period had already concluded.

    I would rate the article an 8/10. The rating is high due to the fact that the author of the article actually interviewed one of the authors of the paper, so a lot of the information was well-construed, and the data was presented in a way that the average reader could understand. They also made a point that it is important for government officials to consult out-of-government scientists on what to do in situations such as this, and that the voices of the locals should be heard. Points were lost because they skipped over the fact that the samples taken by Whelton’s team were not directly recorded after the derailment, and that not all of the findings (such as the chemicals found) were reported.

Sources: 

Frazier, R. The Allegheny FrontScientist questions EPA’s handling of East Palestine cleanup: ‘They should have tested correctly’. 2024.

Jiang, J.; Ding, X.; Coelho, P.; Wittbrod, G.; Whelton, A. J.; Boor, B. E.; Jung, N. Rapid Screening of Volatile Chemicals in Surface Water Samples from the East Palestine, Ohio Chemical Disaster Site with Proton Transfer Reaction Mass Spectrometry. Science of The Total Environment 2024954, 176056. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176056.

Comments

  1. I remember hearing about the derailment a while ago and remember thinking that the disaster was taken care of; however, I never realized the extent to which it was not. It it interesting to me that the EPAs primary way of accessing the hazards was a limited PID when in reality the testing should’ve been more thorough as made evident in the article/study. Are there any other good portable instruments that may have provided more comprehensive information or do you think the quick decisions of the EPA based on the PIDs was only for public response/funding issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know right! I had no idea there was any issue with how it was handled until I came across this article and looked more into it. Unfortunately, the "portable" instruments available (such as the PTR-TOF-MS and GC-FID) still require a van to be transferred and run in. I personally believe that the decision to use PID was due to funding issues, especially since these instruments are very costly and require expertise to run, versus the simple handheld instrument the EPA used.

      Delete
  2. I've heard of companies using vibrational analysis on bearings, pumps, fans, and other rotating machinery for preventative maintenance. I can't help but wonder if this was due to neglect from Norfolk in this case due to poor sensor placement or lack of stricter standards. Anyways, I always thought this was handled much more carefully - I'm surprised the EPA relied primarily on PIDs. I understand it is tricky to detect and quantify analyte concentrations in real time, but with the authors citing a "smell test" it seems like they could've done more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norfolk does use this, which is the funny thing. It was mentioned in another article written by an automotive-focused journal that it was likely due to neglect of the tracks. The main reason is that while the train was passing through Pennsylvania, there were no alerts on the tracks until it reached the border of Ohio, where East Palestine is.

      I was also surprised by what the EPA was using to test. As Seth had mentioned, I would assume it is due to a lack of funding/expertise training required to operate the more advanced instruments with lower limits of detection, and a wider range of compounds it can sense.

      Delete
  3. That is a really big issue, and thanks for sharing this topic. We always talk about how the pollutions near the factory area, but in fact during the transportation it is still very dangerous. I think the paper should also talk about how we can control the pollution instead of talking about detection. Just like the petroleum leaking in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, there should be some damage control

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that more pollution control should be done. If something extreme like this occurs, experts should be contacted to solve the issue in the best way possible. I was surprised that there wasn't some sort of transportation protocol for the chemicals transported. Having that information ahead of time would have better prepared everyone involved.

      Delete
  4. I think that this is why environmental monitoring and public health need to be more intertwined. Environmental health is public health.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This was a great article! Thank you for sharing it with us and giving your perspective! It's upsetting to read how the EPA wasn't as thorough or proactive in working to better understand and mitigate the full impacts of this derailment and the result to the environment because of it. I wonder how high the hydrocarbon concentrations were in the water prior when it was originally contaminated compared to much later. In your opinion, do you think this fault from the EPA was because they genuinely didn't have the tools and full knowledge of the situation, or did they not put as much forethought and effort into properly understanding the situation like they should have?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking the same thing, since they measured about a month after, how harmful was it beforehand? I feel like it could be because they lack the funding and knowledge, which I believe is why Whelton mentioned that typically governmental agencies will reach out to external experts to help them fix that issue.

      Delete
  6. I remember hearing about this incident in the news and being utterly shocked at how little was done about the aftermath. I understand that an explosion would cause a massive, harmful effect, but was the 'vent and burn' method the only method that would work to dispose of this chemical? I would like to know more about what research was done before this decision was made. I am sure most of them were not thinking of the environmental impact of this decision, and now people in the surrounding areas are suffering the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've seen some posted videos showing the status of some railroads in US for transporting goods including chemical tanks, after the derailment was reported and became a hot topic online. Those rails are close to destruction, which is beyond my imagination, and seeing trains moving on them is like watching a horror movie. I believe the maintenance of those railroads and trains should be prioritized to avoid future derailment, and it costs far less than the aftermath of a derailment disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great article, Rebecca. It is concerning that a trusted institution like the EPA was unable to provide a comprehensive report on this incident. Timely calibration and validation of instruments are crucial to ensure the accuracy of such investigations. Although the timeframe for Whelton's research raises some questions, I appreciate that you addressed this point in your article’s evaluation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The article did a good job explaining the train accident and how the cleanup was handled. I liked that it included a scientist’s opinion and showed why it’s important to test the air and water properly. But I think it should have mentioned that the water samples were taken weeks after the accident, which could change the results. Why didn’t the EPA use better tools to test the air and water right after the accident?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment