Overmod charlie hebdo Last I heard it was an NS train operating on NS infrastructure. Last I heard it was an NS wreckmaster being ordered on direct threat of arrest -- well before the polymerizing vinyl chloride was even detected -- from issuing any orders whatsoever regarding the accident response. THAT defeats any whining that "it's all Norfolk Southern's fault because their train came off the rails". Get with the actual picture, not what people are trying to spin you into. It was the planned response, not the train wreck, that has caused most of the ecological disaster. Wait to see who's to blame for that before judging.
charlie hebdo Last I heard it was an NS train operating on NS infrastructure.
Last I heard it was an NS wreckmaster being ordered on direct threat of arrest -- well before the polymerizing vinyl chloride was even detected -- from issuing any orders whatsoever regarding the accident response.
THAT defeats any whining that "it's all Norfolk Southern's fault because their train came off the rails".
Get with the actual picture, not what people are trying to spin you into. It was the planned response, not the train wreck, that has caused most of the ecological disaster. Wait to see who's to blame for that before judging.
If you actually want to be persuasive, you might try avoiding the condescension, conspiracy claiming (portraying NS as a victim) and logorrhea.
The big picture is that there would not have been a chemical spill, etc. if there had not been an avoidable derailment.
charlie hebdo Overmod charlie hebdo Last I heard it was an NS train operating on NS infrastructure. Last I heard it was an NS wreckmaster being ordered on direct threat of arrest -- well before the polymerizing vinyl chloride was even detected -- from issuing any orders whatsoever regarding the accident response. THAT defeats any whining that "it's all Norfolk Southern's fault because their train came off the rails". Get with the actual picture, not what people are trying to spin you into. It was the planned response, not the train wreck, that has caused most of the ecological disaster. Wait to see who's to blame for that before judging. If you actually want to be persuasive, you might try avoiding the condescension, conspiracy claiming (portraying NS as a victim) and logorrhea. The big picture is that there would not have been a chemical spill, etc. if there had not been an avoidable derailment.
In the 'if only' world - everything is avoidable. The real world is different.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidI posted some information about this on the other “derailments” thread. As I recall, it involved positions on the question of who approved the controlled burn. So the following parties were asked whether they approved the controlled burn: The Ohio and Pennsylvania Governors, Norfolk Southern RR, the Federal and Ohio EPAs, the East Palestine Fire Chief Incident Commander, and the local Police Department. There was a public hearing that addressed this matter; and all the above-mentioned denied having given the approval for the controlled burn.
I've only been involved in a few spills that were big enough to have needed the incident command structure, but I am at a loss to understand how the incident commander was not involved in, or unaware of such an impending major mitigation event as blowing holes in pressurized tanks.
EuclidI am most curious about what the Federal EPA would have recommended had they been asked for an approval of the controlled burn. I would like to know what the EPA considers to have been the acceptable method of dealing with the wreck of railcars that included five tank cars of vinyl chloride. I want to hear what the EPA recommends as the proper procedure for this.
My guess is to let the relief valves on the tank cars vent the gas, however, since the valves were thought to have been schorched, they might have had to get creative.
Euclid Then one of their first acts was to inform NS that it was wrong for NS to have just refilled and graded their torn up roadbed, and relayed the track. The EPA told NS that they must remove their newly laid track and excavate out all contaminated soil below their track, and then re-fill that volume with new uncontaminated soil. Regarding that point, I am surprised that NS had deemed it proper to simply bury the mix of soil and spilled chemicals on site, and let it go at that. And if NS did not deem it proper, I am even more surprised that NS thought they could get away with that methodology. I think it raises the question of why NS was in such a rush.
My experience is in oil field spills, and in some cercumstances it is acceptable to remediate soil in situ using soil venting/air sparging/groundwater purge, etc. Remember vinyl chloride boils at 8 deg F, so as the pressurized liquid comes out of the tanks, its trying to evaporate. Would it flash freeze wet soil that it came in contact with?
Euclidn the legal action announced in the first post here, the EPA does say that the controlled burn added five loaded cars of vinyl chloride to the “release,” a term that I assume refers to the general chemical spillage of the derailment, as opposed to the release of smoke during the controlled burn. It also says that it was the NS that vented and burned the five tank cars. I must conclude that if NS did not make the decision to vent and burn the five cars, they surely must know who did make that decision.
Generally the term "release" means the product has escaped the primary containment, eg., the tank. It could include liquid and smoke. As far as the EPA knowing who made the decision to vent and burn, I would refer back to your paragraph at the top of this post.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Overmod charlie hebdo Last I heard it was an NS train operating on NS infrastructure. Last I heard it was an NS wreckmaster being ordered on direct threat of arrest -- well before the polymerizing vinyl chloride was even detected -- from issuing any orders whatsoever regarding the accident response. THAT defeats any whining that "it's all Norfolk Southern's fault because their train came off the rails". Get with the actual picture, not what people are trying to spin you into. It was the planned response, not the train wreck, that has caused most of the ecological disaster. Wait to see who's to blame for that before judging. If you actually want to be persuasive, you might try avoiding the condescension, conspiracy claiming (portraying NS as a victim) and logorrhea. The big picture is that there would not have been a chemical spill, etc. if there had not been an avoidable derailment. In the 'if only' world - everything is avoidable. The real world is different.
In the real world, progress is made by learning from our mistakes to avoid them in the future, rather than cover up, minimize or spin. Making NS take responsibilty is also an objective.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.