
Confusion on sensor plane's abilities delayed response in Ohio train derailment, report says
A specialized plane equipped with advanced sensors that the government deploys to chemical disasters could have helped authorities avoid needlessly blowing open five rail tank cars and burning their toxic contents after the disastrous 2023 East Palestine train derailment, a new report says.
The report released Tuesday found the single-engine Cessna wasn't called into action until the night before the rail cars filled with vinyl chloride were blown open because officials with the Environmental Protection Agency on the ground didn't fully understand the plane's sophisticated capabilities.
The report by the EPA's Inspector General said the agency's on-scene coordinator mistakenly thought the so-called ASPECT plane could only measure 20- to 30-degree differences in temperature. In reality, the report noted, the sensors can measure slight temperature differences of less than 1 degree.
That information could have helped first responders avoid the key mistake the National Transportation Safety Board identified of blowing open the tank cars filled with the toxic plastic ingredient.
The on-scene coordinator's 'limited awareness or use of the full range of ASPECT capabilities could negatively impact emergency response decision-making,' the report said.
The towering plume of black smoke
The explosion and fire generated a massive plume of black smoke over East Palestine that billowed eastward over the nearby Ohio- Pennsylvania border three days after the derailment. State and local officials in charge of the response feared those tank cars would explode even though the limited temperature information they had showed the cars were starting to cool off.
The National Transportation Safety Board had previously faulted the Norfolk Southern railroad for not sharing the opinion of the chemical maker that the vinyl chloride wasn't going to explode with decisionmakers. Norfolk Southern has said OxyVinyls officials offered conflicting information that left the railroad's experts worried about a dangerous chemical reaction.
Much of the small town of East Palestine had to be evacuated for days because of the toxic chemical fire. Many residents still complain of lingering health symptoms, fearful of potential long-term health consequences.
The EPA has maintained that dangerous levels of chemicals were never found after the evacuation order was lifted five days after the Feb. 3, 2023, derailment.
Some have questioned whether the agency did enough to detect the chemicals in the aftermath and doctors are still trying to determine what prolonged exposure to low levels of the chemicals might mean. Recently released records show officials with the Federal Emergency Management Administration have acknowledged residents' fears that cancer clusters could develop years from now in local residents despite the EPA's assurances.
Robert Kroutil, the man who wrote the software and helped interpret the data from the plane's advanced radiological and infrared sensors, has said having accurate temperature data from the plane could have helped avoid the vent-and-burn operation.
'The report noted that EPA officials believe that the on-ground monitoring equipment provided superior detection capabilities, which is incorrect,' Kroutil said. "This demonstrates EPA's complete lack of understanding of the ASPECT technology and how it works to protect chemically impacted sites.'
EPA updates its policies
The East Palestine derailment was the worst rail disaster in a decade. It prompted a national reckoning with rail safety and calls for reform — although proposals for new industry rules stalled in Congress.
The railroad's contractors who led the response to the derailment told the NTSB they had difficulty getting accurate temperature readings on the cars because the fire surrounding them made it especially dangerous. Kroutil's concerns prompted the IG investigation.
The EPA said in its official response to the report that it has developed a detailed fact sheet and plans to train its emergency responders about the plane's capabilities and when it should be deployed over the next year. But the agency didn't immediately respond Tuesday to questions about the delayed response in East Palestine.
Lingering questions about the flights
The Government Accountability Project watchdog group that helped Kroutil document his concerns questioned why the Inspector General didn't look into other aspects like Kroutil's concerns that the plane's sensors were intentionally shut off over the creeks around East Palestine and that the final report on the flights was changed to overlook the incomplete data that was generated in just two flights before the plane was sent home.
GAP's Senior Environmental Officer Lesley Pacey said 'the investigation's scope was too narrow, failing to address the most serious allegations.'
The EPA didn't even call for the sensor plane until two nights after the derailment when officials were already contemplating the vent-and-burn operation.
The plane took off from its Texas base within a half hour of getting the call, but it didn't make a pass over the derailment as it flew into the area that night, and then weather conditions kept it from flying during the controversial burn operation the next day. It didn't gather any data until the following day after most of the chemicals had already been distributed by the wind.
The Inspector General said the emails and documents it reviewed showed that officials followed existing practices on deploying the plane, but those procedures lacked the clarity needed to help them decide when to deploy the plane.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Takeaways from AP examination showing benefits, costs of rules Trump EPA wants to change
The Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump has served notice it wants to back away from at least 30 major rules that seek to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The agency's administrator, Lee Zeldin, says doing so would mean a new 'golden age' for America. It's not certain the rules will go away. They can't be changed without going through a demanding federal rulemaking process. But an examination by The Associated Press found that gutting the rules would come with high costs in both money and lives. Here are some takeaways from AP's work: Hundreds of billions of dollars in costs, thousands of deaths The AP examination found that the targeted rules are estimated to save at least $275 billion a year and more than 30,000 lives annually. Those figures were built in part on regulatory impact reports prepared by the EPA itself to factor in things such as reduced illnesses and deaths, as well as how much it would cost companies to comply with the rules. AP also worked with research by the Environmental Protection Network of former agency employees. AP found about 10,000 American lives were expected to be saved as the rules cut traditional pollutants such as soot, smog and heavy metals like mercury and lead. AP also calculated that doing away with the rules entirely would mean rising greenhouse gas emissions that would in turn drive deadly heat that would account for 25,000 more deaths each year around the world. That calculation also relied on a think-tank report and scientific studies that calculate deaths per ton of emissions. What some of the rules look like Some of the rules have been in place for years, while others were written under President Joe Biden and have not yet taken effect because of court challenges or because they are designed to kick in during later years. One example is a proposed update to existing EPA emissions standards for vehicles that's aimed at jump-starting electric cars. It's supposed to take effect for 2027 model years. The EPA's own analysis estimated net annual benefits of more than $100 billion a year. Another rule sets the level of traditional pollutants allowable in air that's deemed clean. The Clean Air Act requires that it be updated every few years. Public health and experts say one type of traditional pollution, particulate matter — better known as soot — is the most deadly in America, with severe consequences when reaching a person's lungs. In 2024, the Biden administration cut by 25% the amount of particulate matter that states are allowed to emit into the air. The EPA calculated a net benefit from that rule of as much as $46 billion a year, and the prevention of 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 asthma incidents annually. Fact sheets that cite all the costs and (almost) none of the benefits Under Trump, the EPA has created fact sheets that emphasize the costs but not the benefits of the rules. Nine of 10 fact sheets make no mention of benefits at all. But eight of the fact sheets cite costs. For example, a fact sheet for one rule that would require newer coal-powered plants to cut or capture carbon emissions by as much as 90% noted that it would cost nearly $1 billion. But that sheet made no mention that the rule was estimated to save more than $24 billion a year. In 17 of the 20 rules with explicit cost-benefit analyses that AP examined, the estimated benefits are larger than the costs — and sometimes far larger. Changing the rules requires following a process The Trump administration has not said how far the targeted rules would be rolled back. And Zeldin has vowed to follow federal law. Experts say the targeted rules were the product of rigorous impact analyses that got close scrutiny from the EPA and other federal agencies. Such rules cannot be undone without presenting scientific justification through a federal rulemaking process that can take years to complete and includes requirements for public comment. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at


The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Cleveland Browns clash with city over plan to move stadium to the suburbs
For Ryan James, co-owner of the Flat Iron Cafe, Cleveland's oldest Irish pub, National Football League game days are a lifeline in an increasingly difficult business climate. 'We open up at 9am, and within a few hours, both floors are full of supporters,' he says. The pub bought a bus to shuttle fans the one-mile drive to the Browns' stadium on the Lake Erie waterfront. 'We carry 150 people on that alone.' He estimates that the eight or nine days a year that the Cleveland Browns play at home account for up to 10% of his annual revenue – a critical amount in a business with such tight margins. But now, James and hundreds of other local businesses in downtown Cleveland are faced with the prospect of taking a major financial hit. Except for a brief spell in the 1990s, fans have thronged downtown Cleveland on Sundays in fall and winter to cheer on their NFL team, the Cleveland Browns, for 80 years. The stadium and team have served as an economic linchpin for the downtown area in good times and bad. In parking and hotel taxes alone, the city is thought to earn about $1m per game. But now, the team wants to move to Brook Park, a suburb south-west of Cleveland, and build a new, $2.4bn domed stadium – half of which its owners are asking to be paid by Cuyahoga county and Ohio taxpayers. It's an issue that communities across the country are facing as major sports franchises move to build or update facilities to make them usable for a range of events, all while asking taxpayers to kick in billions of dollars. The Browns' billionaire owners, Jimmy Haslam and his wife, Dee, maintain that the city of Cleveland has dragged its feet on committing to funding updates to the current stadium, and that the new stadium would drive investment to another part of the region. The city, which owns the stadium, had offered to commit $500m to efforts to renovate the stadium at its current location. 'I don't want to see our taxpayers get fleeced in a deal that socializes the risk back to them and puts the profits in the pockets of a few,' says Chris Ronayne, the Cuyahoga county executive. 'We're talking about something bigger than these teams; we're talking about community vibrancy. The move away is counter to our strategy of keeping the downtown robust.' The Browns and the city have filed lawsuits against each other. Currently, the city of Cleveland pays $1.3m in property taxes and insurance for the stadium annually, with the Browns contributing $250,000 in rent. The team is believed to be worth about $5.15bn, and earns about $100m a year in gate receipts alone. The use of public funds to pay for sports facilities used by billionaire owners is a growing source of contention for cities and their residents around the US. In Kansas City, the Royals (Major League Baseball) and Chiefs (NFL) franchises had teamed up to attempt to persuade local authorities to pay up to $1.7bn through a 40-year sales tax that, in part, would pay for new stadium suites and parking facilities. But last year, voters in Jackson county, Missouri, rejected the proposal. In Chicago, the city's storied Bears (NFL) franchise has been vacillating between building a new facility in the city – a move backed by the city's mayor that would see $2.4bn of public spending – and out of town to a location 25 miles from the city center. In places such as Jacksonville, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, taxpayers are contributing billions of dollars to finance facility renovations or entire new stadiums. Dozens of NFL teams, whose average value has doubled in recent years, argue that improving their facilities is only possible with the help of public money. In Los Angeles, however, the owner of the Rams, Stan Kroenke, paid all $5bn for the cost of the SoFi Stadium, which opened in 2020. In Cleveland, county authorities say they are not explicitly opposed to supporting the Browns' stadium needs at its current location. 'We can make a renovation, and you can have a conversation in the future about a new dome stadium downtown,' says Ronayne. '[But] this is the youngest of the three [professional sports facilities] downtown. This mad rush to Brook Park is just a boondoggle.' The state of Ohio, whose legislature has a Republican supermajority, has said it plans to kick in $600m of taxpayer money through bonds, meaning that residents hundreds of miles from Cleveland with no interest in the team or the sport, could find themselves paying for this new stadium, and any interest accrued on those bonds. The state budget that would include hundreds of millions of dollars of funding must be signed into law by Ohio's governor, Mike DeWine, by 30 June. DeWine, a Republican, has previously expressed his opposition to the funding proposal and can veto bills that have cleared Ohio's legislature, though he regularly follows the party line. An investigation by the Ohio Capital Journal recently found that politicians who have voiced support for the new Browns stadium have received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from the Haslams, who also own the Columbus Crew Major League Soccer team and hold a stake in the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks, and are thought to be worth about $8.5bn. This is happening at a time that Ohio politicians are proposing cuts to the state's education budget that would result in a financial hole several hundreds of millions of dollars in size. But some believe that using the Browns' current home, a valuable, visible space in downtown Cleveland just eight or nine times a year for football games, with a few concerts thrown in, is a waste. The Greater Cleveland Partnership, the metro area's chamber of commerce, supports the move, calling it 'more practical' than investing in the Browns' current site. Both Jimmy and Dee Haslam sit on the Partnership's executive committee. In Brook Park, locals say they would welcome the stadium nearby. 'I think it would be good for my business and the people of Brook Park. It's really not even moving out of Cleveland and most of the people who go to the games are in the suburbs anyway,' says Sam Clarke, who runs a graphics design company a short distance from the site of the proposed new stadium. 'But it's not going to matter if the owners are always making the worst moves. They can't really ever seem to get out of their own way. You can play wherever you want but it doesn't change the bigger issue.' For James, a Browns fan who has run the Flat Iron Cafe in downtown Cleveland for 17 years, the stadium drama is about one thing. 'It's just billionaires trying to make more billions, and I can't stomach that,' he says. 'I have no respect for the organization.'


The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Shock moment horrified TV host is told he has skin cancer live on air by dermatologist guest
A FOX News television anchor was given a diagnosis of skin cancer while live on air. Philly host Mike Jerrick, who co-anchors Good Day Philadelphia, was seen on air chatting to dermatologist, Dr. Joanna Walker in a recent instalment of the show. 4 4 4 The pair then discovered a likely-cancerous spot on Mike's elbow after talking about the importance of checking moles. Dr. Joanna, the dermatologist, who works with the Tara Miller Melanoma Center at the University of Pennsylvania, told the host that the spot on his arm had "all the features" pointing to skin cancer. The doctor said: "So this is a basal cell skin cancer," while pointing at Mike's arm and the spot he had. "That has all the features of the most common type of skin cancer," Dr. Joanna added. She reassured the host that the cancer is "very treatable" and is a "slow growing" type of skin cancer. Dr. Joanna then told him that he would need to have the spot removed. Mike replied: "What are you gonna do to it? Burn it off?" Dr. Joanna responded: "This one probably needs to be cut and stitched." "What!?" Mike said, sounding shocked, adding, "and then stitch me up?" "So this one is a very slow growing type of skin cancer," Dr. Joanna continued. Lara Trump's scathing take-down of liberal anchor Jake Tapper after CNN star's groveling apology over Biden decline "It's not gonna spread to anywhere else on your body. "But it needs to be removed so it doesn't keep growing and taking over normal skin." Mike then added: "Oh, good lord." Speaking on Fox News, Mike then spoke about the shock he felt when he received the news that he likely had cancer. Can you spot the cancerous moles from the harmless ones? IF you've spotted a new mole or lingering mark on your skin, don't be too quick to dismiss it. It's important to know what your skin looks like normally, to helps you notice any unusual changes. The ABCDE rule can be followed to assess the health of a mole. If your mole falls into the following, it's worth getting checked: A symmetrical – melanomas usually have two very different halves and are an irregular shape B order – melanomas usually have a notched or ragged border C olours – melanomas will usually be a mix of two or more colours D iameter – most melanomas are usually larger than 6mm in diameter E nlargement or e levation – a mole that changes size over time is more likely to be a melanoma Most melanomas don't give you symptoms like pain or itching. Meanwhile, some non-cancerous moles or abnormal patches of skin can be itchy. So having some of these changes on their own doesn't mean you definitely have melanoma, but you should still get it checked out. There are two main types of skin cancer - non melanoma skin cancer and melanoma skin cancer. Non-melanoma skin cancer includes: Basal cell skin cancer - this is also called basal cell carcinoma Squamous cell skin cancer - this is also called squamous cell carcinoma There are a few different types of melanoma too: Superficial spreading melanoma Nodular melanoma Lentigo maligna melanoma Find out more about distinguishing moles here. "I did say that we should have had her bring her scope because I wanted to check out of couple of things on my arms. "So that part was planned. "But I never really thought it was going to be skin cancer," he confessed. Co-host Alex Holley then asked if he needed to make an appointment. Dr. Joanna then advised that Mike should make an appointment swiftly. Fans and viewers have since reacted to Mike's skin cancer shock. "Discovering that live must've been so intense! Stay strong," said one person. A second penned: "Good luck Mike with your skin cancer. Please get a body check annually with your dermatologist."