GRAETTINGER, Iowa — A Union Pacific train carrying a shipment of ethanol derailed near Graettinger early Friday morning. Twenty-seven of the 100 loaded tank cars in the train’s consist derailed and caught fire after impact. There were no ...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/03/10-ethanol-fire
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
23 17 46 11
http://whotv.com/2017/03/10/crews-fight-fire-after-train-derails-in-palo-alto-county/
Jeff
WOI-TV's (Des Moines, ABC affiliate) 6pm report had a reporter still on the scene. She reported that a possible trestle collapse caused the derailment. She also reported that only 8 or 9 cars were burning, that 74 cars had been detached and pulled away from the scene. So 27 cars were left, but not all may be derailed.
WOI has not yet placed the 6pm report on their website as I write this.
The video that is being broadcast locally shows the 20-odd cars remaining at the site. Several are on their sides and probably burned out while the rest appear to be upright and still railed. A major fire was burning when the video was shot, and the authorities were standing back and watching it burn itself out.
Still supposedly burning at noon today, Saturday the 11th, according to national TV news...
Ethanol burns with a clear flame, which is why first responders are very cautious around the stuff. The flames visible in the photos are probably from burning paint.
The good news is that ethanol is totally biodegradable, that the fire is in the approximate heart of nowhere and that, so far, no injuries have been reported.
The bad news is that this incident will bring all the anti-everything-about-liquid-fuel agendaphiles swarming out of the woodwork. Watch for lots of overheated rhetoric on the green weenie sites.
Chuck (former USAF Disaster Control technician)
What's worst of all is that reports say that these are all DOT-111s.
DOT 111's never went anywhere.
A lot of the new crude oil tanks are all 111's, just newer 111 models.
The media never reports the facts.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
The 11 span,152' timber pile trestle where this happened is all ashes by now.As the thing cools off, I suspect anything with broken steel (railcar/mechanical or track)will be looked at thoroughly with Unca Pete pushing Hulcher to clear the site in order to clear the site for a replacement structure. At least the line is not cut off from the rest of the UP universe (Rake Sub is there with albeit lighter rail than the Estherville Sub.). Final cause most likely will be an opinion which will be open to question.
Wonder if there had been a WILDS detector on that train (they tend to roost on buffer cars) or the preceding one?
NTSB video of inspectors on site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI9zO0T0S8
jeffhergertNTSB video of inspectors on site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI9zO0T0S8 Jeff
At the 6 minute mark it shows puddled metal - that must have been aluminum as it melts at a lower temperature than steel. What I can't figure is where it came from? Only thing I can think of is the remains of the EOT as being nominally the only thing aluminum on a train that I can think of.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The aluminum is probably from a brake valve. As I recall NYAB valves were aluminum castings.
I can now see that there will probably be some discussion in the report about use/desirability/placement standard of inside steel guardrails.
(Do any of those guys own a dirty (used) hardhat/vest?)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ethanol can be shipped
via pipeline.
nyc#25 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ethanol can be shipped via pipeline.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ethanol can be shipped via pipeline.
Too, does ethanol flow along the same lanes as oil products?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
nyc#25Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ethanol can be shipped via pipeline.
It 'could' be shipped via pipeline, but it would have to be a dedicated pipeline, not shared with oil products.
Interestingly, heavier alcohols (notably butanol) CAN be shipped as slugs in hydrocarbon pipelines, which makes them interesting as alternative fuels. There's research into finding microorganisms that can produce commercial quantities via some analog of fermentation that can be made cost-effective at scale.
Ethanol can be shipped by pipeline, but there are many problems to its general application.
http://www.api.org/~/media/files/oil-and-natural-gas/pipeline/aopl_api_ethanol_transportation.pdf
The local news reported that the wrecked tankers have now been removed from the site. Additionally, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has caused 700 tons of ethanol contaminated soil to be trucked to a landfill where it will "quickly and naturally" breakdown and become harmless.
Of course, the reporter wasn't sharp enough to ask or report on why if it is shortly to become harmless it had to be moved at all.
When you let a liquid contaminant sit in the ground, it will probably reach the water table and then contaminate it. If you dig up a volatile liquid like ethanol, much of it flashes off. It is further aerated and degraded when it is spread out in the landfill. Any residual that is left will be caught by the landfill under-liner.
The land owner is going to have to deep plow the field, perhaps more than once, to remedy the compaction caused by the heavy equipment used to clean up the wreckage, to say nothing of the additional equipment brought in to remove and haul the dirt from the site. Effectively, the plowing will spread and aerate any soil remaining contaminated after the spill and fire.
As the wreck occured directly over a small stream, news reports have indicated water quality is already being monitored, so far with negative results.
However, the simple solution defeats the Iowa DNR's Command and Control philosophy if not the reason for their existence. If the soil had been treated in place, there would be far less rationality in support of the fine the DNR will assess against the railroad for this incident.
If the ethanol was just lpowed back into the soil, wouldn't it just decompose and eventually turn into fertilizer?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
With tank cars of ethanol spilled, it is hard to believe the product didn't soak well below plow depth all the way to the water table. Ethanol is water miscible so it would have continued to mix down into the groundwater. I am sure the RR could have proposed in situ remediation, however, that would have required much more long term monitoring and covering more pathways to exposure, all for an uncertain outcome. I would guess the RR chose the quicker removal of source to a landfill.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.