csxns Norm48327This morning a tank truck went off I-69 near Davison, 120.000 pounds of oil that 18 wheeler was carrying a lot.
Norm48327This morning a tank truck went off I-69 near Davison,
Could have been a "double bottom" (semi and pup). Michigan allows them, but not for gasoline. As usual, reporting is somewhat suspect.
Norm
Randy Stahl: Beaulieu has made many informative posts on here. Bashing him with an amateurish pop-psych statement is an inappropriate response for you to make to defend Ed burkhardt or anyone else. Stick to facts rather than ad hominem arguments, please.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Schlim,
Beaulieu's post certainly bashed Burkhardt.
Not trying to start an argument. Just sayin'.
schlimm Randy Stahl: Beaulieu has made many informative posts on here. Bashing him with an amateurish pop-psych statement is an inappropriate response for you to make to defend Ed burkhardt or anyone else. Stick to facts rather than ad hominem arguments, please.
I was at Weyawega that morning and for days after, I know the facts better than anyone here .. Nice try.
Norm48327 Schlim, Beaulieu's post certainly bashed Burkhardt. Not trying to start an argument. Just sayin'.
You miss the point. Burkhardt is a public figure. Criticism comes with his job. However, misusing a pop-psych term in a personal attack on Beaulieu to attack his motivation is a different matter. Randy made a valid factual response/defense of Burkhardt (not that he needs it) but then he went too far.
NO sir . not too far. Did the Weyawega link get posted for nostalgia ? No sir , it was meant to illicit a response. It was obviously meant to be the beginning of bash Ed Burkhardt.
You never know who is on these forums . Bringing up the wreck at Weyawega in the context of bashing the boss is a personal attack on all the employees of the WC including myself. We all worked hard to fix the damage there and get things back to normal, Ed included. I should remind you that there were NO injurys or fatalities at Weyawega. I will not be insulted for our efforts.
henry6 But MidlandMike, it still puts the onus on the oil and gas companies to do something about it. If it means cutting their profits from 100% to 50% or even 20 or 10%, so be it. They have to take responsibility. e are told someplace here or elsewhere, that the problem is that the volatility of the Bakken crude varies from well to to well and time to time and that they didn't mention it to the railroads because they evidently thought nothing of it. So, railroads didn't supply the right tank cars for the volatility nor make other handling arrangements and notifications to crews and first responders along the way. So right now I put the pressure on the oil and gas companies to take the lead in solving the problem. They own the tank cars for the most part; it's not like they call the railroad and the railroad rounds up the needed cars, the oil companies lease the cars from other sources. So, they have to decide that Bakken crude is so worth the money to refine on the spot of recovery or pay more for transportation in proper cars and for proper safety measures a railroad may decide it has to take. I can see if a railroad decides that all trains running opposite a Bakken crude move have to take siding and be inspected for derailed cars before the Bakken can meet and pass, the cost goes to the oil company. Manned switches, separated tracks and road beds, stopped traffic, whatever cost incurred by the railroads have to be shouldered by the oil companies. If that cost is more than a refinery or not has to be determined and the safest plan implemented.
But MidlandMike, it still puts the onus on the oil and gas companies to do something about it. If it means cutting their profits from 100% to 50% or even 20 or 10%, so be it. They have to take responsibility. e are told someplace here or elsewhere, that the problem is that the volatility of the Bakken crude varies from well to to well and time to time and that they didn't mention it to the railroads because they evidently thought nothing of it. So, railroads didn't supply the right tank cars for the volatility nor make other handling arrangements and notifications to crews and first responders along the way. So right now I put the pressure on the oil and gas companies to take the lead in solving the problem. They own the tank cars for the most part; it's not like they call the railroad and the railroad rounds up the needed cars, the oil companies lease the cars from other sources. So, they have to decide that Bakken crude is so worth the money to refine on the spot of recovery or pay more for transportation in proper cars and for proper safety measures a railroad may decide it has to take. I can see if a railroad decides that all trains running opposite a Bakken crude move have to take siding and be inspected for derailed cars before the Bakken can meet and pass, the cost goes to the oil company. Manned switches, separated tracks and road beds, stopped traffic, whatever cost incurred by the railroads have to be shouldered by the oil companies. If that cost is more than a refinery or not has to be determined and the safest plan implemented.
I don't know what the oil companies told anyone, but I presume it will come out of the ongoing investigations. I presume the oil companies did all required pre-sampling, and they may find out that they need to do more. Nevertheless, I believe it was pointed out in another thread that the DOT 111 tank cars are the correct car for any crude oil. Oil production companies generally turn over the movement of the crude to an oil transport company who probably lease the cars. I think it would be an oddity if an oil production company owned any cars for crude. It will be up to the tank car owners to upgrade the car fleet, if that becomes regulatory decree. I'm sure production companies will use rail if it's the best choice, or only choice. Bakken crude is produced by many oil companies,and sold to many different refineries, and there is no chance that there will be significant refineries built in the field beyond the small specialty ones of the type already mentioned. Rail is hauling some of the crude for now but the oil companies are not compelled to do it for any longer than pipeline, or other options become available. It's the rails business to keep or lose.
You are to be commended on your quick response to the derailment, caused by the undetected, fractured heel block in a switch. A contributing factor was a lock bar that had been missing for approximately a year. 2300 people were forced out of their homes for 18 days but fortunately none were injured.
But Ed Burkhardt is not immune to criticism and even if you choose to take it personally, that does not justify a personal attack. You never know who is on these forums. Maybe beaulieu knew a resident of Weyauwega, who would have a different reaction to yours! I do not know.
Randy Stahl As far as I know Ed Burkhardt wasn't on the Weyawega train. If your intent is to bash Ed Burkhardt your attempt is amateur and obviously a cry for attention.
As far as I know Ed Burkhardt wasn't on the Weyawega train. If your intent is to bash Ed Burkhardt your attempt is amateur and obviously a cry for attention.
Cool down Randy. My point was not in any way to bash Mr. Burkhardt. My reason for mentioning him was to contrast the excellent way that the WCL handled the Public Relations fallout from the Weyauwega accident, to the unfortunate way that he and MM&A have handled the Lac Megantic accident. His comments have sadly inflamed the media and public.
The other reason for mentioning Weyauwega is to show that Bakken Crude and DOT-111 tankcars are not the only serious flammable hazard traversing Upper Midwest rails. This year's bountiful crop harvest and wet conditions in much of the Corn Belt have resulted in a local Propane shortage in Northern Iowa and Southern Minnesota which was alleviated by larger than normal tankcar movements from out of the area. Cuts of 10-20 Propane or Anhydrous Ammonia in Manifest trains are not uncommon at this time of year and present just as much risk as unit Bakken Crude trains.
schlimm You are to be commended on your quick response to the derailment, caused by the undetected, fractured heel block in a switch. A contributing factor was a lock bar that had been missing for approximately a year. 2300 people were forced out of their homes for 18 days but fortunately none were injured. But Ed Burkhardt is not immune to criticism and even if you choose to take it personally, that does not justify a personal attack. You never know who is on these forums. Maybe beaulieu knew a resident of Weyauwega, who would have a different reaction to yours! I do not know.
Hi All
Without inflaming this discussion....which I have no desire to do.
What can each and all of us take from this exchange given our individual levels or degrees of involvement?
I don't really know; however a tragedy (in Wisconsin, Quebec or ND) is a tragedy which affects each person involved, directly or otherwise, differently.
Sounds like the 'analysis of crude being shipped' question,among others, will be front and centre for all concerned.
I'm sure there will be more to come.
Just saying.....
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
beaulieu Randy Stahl As far as I know Ed Burkhardt wasn't on the Weyawega train. If your intent is to bash Ed Burkhardt your attempt is amateur and obviously a cry for attention. Cool down Randy. My point was not in any way to bash Mr. Burkhardt. My reason for mentioning him was to contrast the excellent way that the WCL handled the Public Relations fallout from the Weyauwega accident, to the unfortunate way that he and MM&A have handled the Lac Megantic accident. His comments have sadly inflamed the media and public. The other reason for mentioning Weyauwega is to show that Bakken Crude and DOT-111 tankcars are not the only serious flammable hazard traversing Upper Midwest rails. This year's bountiful crop harvest and wet conditions in much of the Corn Belt have resulted in a local Propane shortage in Northern Iowa and Southern Minnesota which was alleviated by larger than normal tankcar movements from out of the area. Cuts of 10-20 Propane or Anhydrous Ammonia in Manifest trains are not uncommon at this time of year and present just as much risk as unit Bakken Crude trains.
Weyawega and Megantic are two very different circumstances. I was there in Megantic July 6th, I lost four fine Quebec friends in the fires, I seen the carnage and destruction of what became a home away from home for me first hand within 2 hours of the wreck. I spent nearly my entire summer of 2013 there and fell asleep at the end of each traumatic day within 200 feet of burning crude oil. There was NOTHING Ed or the MMA or anyone else could have said or done that would NOT have infuriated the people (except crucify someone). Everyone's emotions were out of control and for good reason. There isn't a day that goes by that I do not see the wreck in my minds eye.
At Lac Magantic time the railroad accused the oil loader of overfilling cars and putting or mixing other ingredients in the crude. It was denied but the oil companies did reveal that Bakken crude is uneven in consistency and may be more volatile and flammable than other crudes and that this difference varies from well to well and day to day. But they did not report it to the railroads. Nor the pipeline companies either evidenced by yesterday's (1/2/14 Thursday) notification by the pipeline industry to pipeline operators to be aware of the extra flammability and to warn and notify first responders to the dangers. Railroads were not given that warning when they started handling the Bakken Crude or these accidents might not have happened. One, the railroads would have made certain that the proper tank car was used instead of regular crude use cars. Two, precautions would have been taken in handling the trains; this could be with all opposing traffic stopped and inspected before the crude passed by or not tying down a train of this crude at the top of a hill and leave it unattended for instance. It is not the derailments that are a problem but the lack of taking responsibility to inform the railroads the properties of the crude. It could almost be said that the company who shipped the crude caused the downfall of the MM&A and its president because of their negligence. Rails are still the safest and most efficient and inexpensive way of moving this product. And if the railroads and government agencies do their job right and not protect the oil companies but let the public know where the fault lies, oil and other dangerous shipments should stay on the rails. Even the thought of a pipe line through a town or hundreds of trucks a day should be enough to scare off their use.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6It is not the derailments that are a problem but the lack of taking responsibility to inform the railroads the properties of the crude.
True, but derailments are a given and if railroads accept the DOT-111 cars filled with Bakken crude (some insist they are required to, but they could appeal that in some way), they also bear limited responsibility for the damages. .
The point is that the railroads accepted the Bakken crude without being told of the hazards involved thinking that crude is crude and the DOT 111 was acceptable. After Lac Magentic when the railroads accused the oil companies of spiking the crude did the oil companies finally reveal the extreme differences of volatility and flammability of Bakken crude. If the railroads knew they would have not accepted the Bakken crude in DOT 111 cars, would have taken steps to assure safety and special response enroute. The oil companies are responsible for putting the railroads and the population at risk. Do the rails have some responsibility? Yes, but not to the extent the media and public perceive at this time...the rails were lied to at worst, had information withheld from them at best. The oil companies should be the target of public rath, not the railroads.
Randy Stahl There was NOTHING Ed or the MMA or anyone else could have said or done that would NOT have infuriated the people (except crucify someone). Everyone's emotions were out of control and for good reason. There isn't a day that goes by that I do not see the wreck in my minds eye.
There was NOTHING Ed or the MMA or anyone else could have said or done that would NOT have infuriated the people (except crucify someone). Everyone's emotions were out of control and for good reason. There isn't a day that goes by that I do not see the wreck in my minds eye.
The latest "I too was a victim" quote, is the example I was thinking of. Better to have kept his silence, as it caused a further round of newspaper articles with him in the spotlight. He had to make an initial statement. He would have been better served not saying any more, as a good lawyer would have told him. The statement will be spun and used against him.
henry6Do the rails have some responsibility? Yes, but not to the extent the media and public perceive at this time...the rails were lied to at worst, had information withheld from them at best. The oil companies should be the target of public rath, not the railroads.
This is all not so. These cars are rated for this kind of lading. That newer cars would be better goes without saying, but it will take years to design, test and build newer, safer cars.
Similar cars are used to transport Ethanol, and that is far more flammable than Bakken Crude.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I am led to believe these cars are not suitable for this type of crude. Also, the point is that the oil companies did not notify the railroad of its composition and volatility. Only yesterday did the Pipe Line Association notify its members because they weren't notified about Bakken Crude until lately. Railroads learned about it after they accused the oil company of doctoring the crude with unidentified additives and the oil company responded in the negative but did reveal the problems of Bakken crude of uneven flammability from well to well and from time to time and their inability or lack of trying to identify such volitalibility tank car by tank car. The oil company put the railroads and the public at risk. Period. The railroads could not have known the dangerous properties of Bakken Crude as being different than other crude without the oil company telling them in advance. The railroads should not be burned by the oil companies deceitful action. or lack of action.
schlimm True, but derailments are a given and if railroads accept the DOT-111 cars filled with Bakken crude (some insist they are required to, but they could appeal that in some way), they also bear limited responsibility for the damages. .
As pointed out to you many times already, the law is pretty clear on what is required for a common carrier railroad. As long as the tank cars are declared safe by the regulating agency, which the NTSB is not, they are required to accept them. IF there was a way around that, the railroads quite competent team of lawyers would have found it.
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/aar_hazmatbyrailseptember2009_0.pdf
"Unlike trucks, barges, and airlines, railroads are required by current law to transport TIH materials — even if they don’t want to and even though transporting TIH materials presents an enormous risk"
"Today, the federal government requires railroads to transport TIH materials, whether railroads want to or not. This obligation does not apply to trucks, barges, or airlines"
An "expensive model collector"
henry6After Lac Magentic when the railroads accused the oil companies of spiking the crude did the oil companies finally reveal the extreme differences of volatility and flammability of Bakken crude. If the railroads knew they would have not accepted the Bakken crude in DOT 111 cars, would have taken steps to assure safety and special response enroute.
They have known since the the Canadian investigation revealed the higher volatility, yet they have continued to transport the Bakken anyway. Maybe they "have to" maybe not.
Bakken crude seems to be one of those "it's OK when things are OK, but when things go wrong..." commodities.
I've seen numerous trains of crude (and ethanol) passing through Utica, at speed, and last I knew, Utica was still standing.
There seems to be universal agreement that when things go wrong, DOT111A cars are the wrong vessel in which to be carrying pretty much anything flammable.
But every day, hundreds of the cars are loaded, hauled, and unloaded without incident.
I believe it's been noted that replacements are planned, and being built, but there's that time factor.
Looks like being energy self-sufficient has its downside...
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...
henry6 I am led to believe these cars are not suitable for this type of crude. Also, the point is that the oil companies did not notify the railroad of its composition and volatility. Only yesterday did the Pipe Line Association notify its members because they weren't notified about Bakken Crude until lately. Railroads learned about it after they accused the oil company of doctoring the crude with unidentified additives and the oil company responded in the negative but did reveal the problems of Bakken crude of uneven flammability from well to well and from time to time and their inability or lack of trying to identify such volitalibility tank car by tank car. The oil company put the railroads and the public at risk. Period. The railroads could not have known the dangerous properties of Bakken Crude as being different than other crude without the oil company telling them in advance. The railroads should not be burned by the oil companies deceitful action. or lack of action.
Others have addressed that the DOT 111 cars are the approved cars (for now).
As you and others have stated, railroads are required to transport hazardous loads. Oil producers and buyers sample the oil as a matter of their own interest, and to satisfy regulatory requirements. They do this partly to avoid financial and legal liability. This is especially important at the time of change of custody of the product. When the railroad accepts (willingly or not) the load, they have a due diligence to know how to safely transport the cargo. As I recall, all transporters of hazmet are required by law to have staff designated responsible for the safe oversight of the transit. As has been pointed out in this thread, railroads have had previous and historical experience with crude oil explosion/fire. The railroad has no excuse for not knowing that crude was dangerous. If they had concerns for how dangerous, they should have insisted on further sampling, or had their own done, or gone to FRA to insist on better. If the oil company had met their statutory requirement for sampling, then saying that the oil companies should have warned the railroads about volatility, is not a liability scheme that would be entertained by any court. While there may be environmental law that will hold both the railroads and oil companies jointly and severally liable for clean-up, the railroad will have to take responsibility for causing the wreck and hazardous release.
n012944 ... "Unlike trucks, barges, and airlines, railroads are required by current law to transport TIH materials — even if they don’t want to and even though transporting TIH materials presents an enormous risk" ...
...
I don't think there is a prohibition against a chemical company obtaining a licence to buy trucks, barges and airplanes, and operate them on public highways, waterways and airways. The railroads obligation to carry these toxins apparently stems from the access point of view.
Mike...the railroads have to accept whatever is handed to them because they are registered common carriers...that's our laws. They railroads have to go to court to prove the cargo is dangerous or other real concern etc.if they want to or have to refuse the haul...and they have to have good reason. Here the railroads..and the pipelines apparently by their recent action....were not told of the dangers, were not given the information but handed the cargo as if it was regular crude. Not only were the railroads, pipelines, and other common carriers not notified but also the first responders--fire departments, hazmat teams,etc., weren't notified.. Not having made those notifications could border or actual be criminal acts. If so, the.oil companies should be prosecuted to the fullest and held responsible for damages and deaths. The railroads weren't notified. They rely on the oil companies to tell them. OIl companies shoulder the bulk of the fault.. I also notice that no one in Congress has called anybody on the carpet yet...except to investigate railroad safety...the oil and gas companies have to be dragged on the Congressional carpet too or instead of the railroads.
MidlandMike n012944 ... "Unlike trucks, barges, and airlines, railroads are required by current law to transport TIH materials — even if they don’t want to and even though transporting TIH materials presents an enormous risk" ... I don't think there is a prohibition against a chemical company obtaining a licence to buy trucks, barges and airplanes, and operate them on public highways, waterways and airways. The railroads obligation to carry these toxins apparently stems from the access point of view.
Mike, You are correct in saying HAZMAT's can be hauled on the highways, but is usually done by contract companies rather than the corporation shipping them. You will notice hardly and 'branded' tankers hauling gasoline for instance. That's done for liability purposes.
Passenger airlines are pretty well prohibited from carrying almost any HAZMAT's thanks to things like oxygen generators and lithium batteries catching fire in flight and causing crashes. Cargo only planes can haul some hazardous stuff but the regulations on such are Draconian, and the costs are prohibitive.
Henry, in my last post I laid out the case for why the railroads are responsible. I am not a lawyer, but I have drafted many documents used in cases of oil spills/fires/explosions/toxic gas releases involving oil companies, pipelines and crude trucking companies. I have never dealt with railroads, but in my annual hazmet certification training, I was aware of their present involvement and early contributions to hazardous transportation safety. There is no such realistic entity as "regular crude". Hazmet trained people, including those on railroads, learn that if you don't know the hazardous concentration of a particular substance, you treat it as if t is at the highest hazardous concentration. The tank cars were placarded for crude oil, and the standard hazardous response guidebook warns that it is explosive. It's the same guidebook used by oil companies, railroads, pipelines and all other hazardous operators and first responders. In all your arguments I have not seen anything I would recognize as a legal theory, that holds the oil companies were responsible to notify or educate the railroads about the hazards of crude oil.
As to transport by cargo plane, almost any hazardous substance EXCEPT inhalation hazards may be carried. At least this was so when I last was concerned actively with the transport of hazardous substances.
Johnny
MidlandMike Henry, in my last post I laid out the case for why the railroads are responsible. I am not a lawyer, but I have drafted many documents used in cases of oil spills/fires/explosions/toxic gas releases involving oil companies, pipelines and crude trucking companies. I have never dealt with railroads, but in my annual hazmet certification training, I was aware of their present involvement and early contributions to hazardous transportation safety. There is no such realistic entity as "regular crude". Hazmet trained people, including those on railroads, learn that if you don't know the hazardous concentration of a particular substance, you treat it as if t is at the highest hazardous concentration. The tank cars were placarded for crude oil, and the standard hazardous response guidebook warns that it is explosive. It's the same guidebook used by oil companies, railroads, pipelines and all other hazardous operators and first responders. In all your arguments I have not seen anything I would recognize as a legal theory, that holds the oil companies were responsible to notify or educate the railroads about the hazards of crude oil.
Muddier and muddier. One thing seems clear, however. Even with input from knowledeable folks in the field, a definitive answer is absent.
Deggesty As I recall, the shipper is responsible for correctly labeling everything it ships. The carrier has no way of knowing if an error has been made--until a disaster occurs because of improper labeling. Every bill of lading is to be completed with the proper name of the hazardous substance--which may not be what the shipper itself calls the substance. Of course, the carrier's agent who accepts the shipment may not know the proper names, but the shipper is responsible for any error.
As I recall, the shipper is responsible for correctly labeling everything it ships. The carrier has no way of knowing if an error has been made--until a disaster occurs because of improper labeling. Every bill of lading is to be completed with the proper name of the hazardous substance--which may not be what the shipper itself calls the substance. Of course, the carrier's agent who accepts the shipment may not know the proper names, but the shipper is responsible for any error.
IIRC in the Lac Magantic investigation, the labeling of the proper subclass was called into question. I might guess that this classification may have been originally determined thru sampling, which we touched on before. The investigation would need to determine what sampling protocols were used, if they were the proper ones, and it they were followed. If they were followed, then they obviously need to be revised, in light of their inadequacy. They would also have to determine who the shipper was who would have statutory responsibility for the shipment. It would seem to depend on the agreements between the oil producer, oil logistics company,and perhaps the refiner. This is why I am waiting to hear what the investigating authority has to say. So far what we hear, is the various parties blaming each other.
Maybe if we consider the railroad like a pizza delivery guy - he takes the pizza from the shop and delivers it to your house. If you didn't order an anchovie, garlic, and olive pizza and that's what he brings, you can't really blame him (unless he took the order on the phone and/or actually made the pizza).
While it would be nice if he checked your pizza for "accuracy" when he picked it up from the shop, it's not really his job, and maybe you don't want someone peeking in on your food anyhow.
What's obvious is that there would seem to be some issues with how the crude is assayed and labelled. As I see it, that's not the railroad's problem. Common carrier requirements notwithstanding, they accept a commodity from the shipper and deliver it to the consignee.
We don't expect the railroad to ensure the quality of the orange juice carried in the Tropicana trains.
I'm not sure we can expect the railroad to do any sampling themselves.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.