tree68 ... 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.
...
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.
Suppose the sampling protocol is determined by regulatory agency and oil company followed it. You can't convict someone for following the law.
A railroad could hire from a number of companies to sample oil for them if it was a concern. It's no more far fetched than thinking they will avoid any responsibility for their fire/wreck.
It is plain. The oil companies did not reveal to the railroads that Bakken Crude had properties different than other crude. The railroad does not have a scientific lab force to study every thing shipped by rail and relies on the shipper to provide accurate, correct and truthful information. Not only were the railroads not informed of the increased risk of flammability of Bakken Crude but nor was anyone else. The pipe lines companies learned of it because of the Quebec and Alabama wrecks and it is not know if the first responder emergency teams have been notified as yet. The onus of the whole of this problem right now is on the shoulders of the oil industry. Railroads could not make recommendations and take precautions because they didn't know. Fire departments and emergency crews were not prepared because they weren't informed. Pipeline companies had not yet transported this volatile crude so lucked out.
From my soap box:: the oil companies have committed a crime which has cost lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in at least three rail wrecks and therefore must be held criminally accountable as well as financially responsible. They knew what they had, knew what they were doing, and put railroads, pipelines, first responders, and every and all people living along the transportation routes at risk for the benefit of the oil companies.
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.
As I said, before Lac Magentic and some of the subsequent proliminary investigation, the railroads were in the dark about the specific dangers posed by bakken when transported in the DOT 111A cars. Not since, and that is several months ago.
But the point isn't about who is liable for damages. The most important point should be about assuring safety. If that means a temporary freze on the transport of the Bakken crude in DOT 111A cars, then that may have to be what happens. And rest assured, this is not going to be conveniently forgotten or ignored. There is sufficient public alarm to force action by the regulators.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm But the point isn't about who is liable for damages. The most important point should be about assuring safety. If that means a temporary freze on the transport of the Bakken crude in DOT 111A cars, then that may have to be what happens. And rest assured, this is not going to be conveniently forgotten or ignored. There is sufficient public alarm to force action by the regulators.
But our society looks for someone to pay the damages...so we will pursue for that reason.
Buy your last statement, Schlimm, about forcing action by regulators is interesting because I haven't heard of any such action as yet. One congressman somewhere wants railroads hauled in to inspect their safety records. NTSB finally got a notice out to regulators and the pipeline and railroad associations about Bakken crude's properties. But we've not heard anyone talking about the activities of the oil companies in this matter. There is a wide open political angle about congress, government, and oil companies relationships that has become the elephant in the room.
schlimm 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.
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.
Very interesting article in Railway Age regarding Bakken oil and the Lac Megantic disaster. It's relevant to this discussion.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/controversy-surrounds-lac-megantic-crude-oil-test-data.html?channel=40
Norm
mudchicken schlimm 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. They have to. NO QUESTION. They can't even put a surcharge on the load to cover the risk.
The question on the "chemistry" of the crude oil has come up numerous times on many lists. My question is what difference does it make?
If the oil has low volatility its a flammable liquid.
If the oil has high volatility its a flammable liquid.
If the oil is pure naptha its a flammable liquid.
If the oil was pure gasoline its a flammable liquid.
Other than paperwork there is NO, nada, zilch difference on how the commodity is placarded. That means the railroad handles it the same.
It doesn't matter what the chemical composition is, any way you slice, any level of volatility, its just a flammable liquid and the railroad, in full compliance with the regulations and rules, will handle it in the same way.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Maybe they will just break up the unit trains and put fewer groups of cars on other trains....will cost more but would be cheaper than a total ban
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
dehusman The question on the "chemistry" of the crude oil has come up numerous times on many lists. My question is what difference does it make? If the oil has low volatility its a flammable liquid. If the oil has high volatility its a flammable liquid. If the oil is pure naptha its a flammable liquid. If the oil was pure gasoline its a flammable liquid. Other than paperwork there is NO, nada, zilch difference on how the commodity is placarded. That means the railroad handles it the same. It doesn't matter what the chemical composition is, any way you slice, any level of volatility, its just a flammable liquid and the railroad, in full compliance with the regulations and rules, will handle it in the same way.
Strictly speaking, there is a difference:
https://www.osha.gov/dte/library/flammable_liquids/flammable_liquids.html
Less volatile liquids (flash point over 100 degrees F) are termed "combustible."
More volatile liquids (flash point under 100 degrees F) are termed "flammable."
And even within those parameters, there are more specific designations.
And there lies the rub.
In the end, though, as noted, there are just a few UN (hazmat) codes that are used with regard to this traffic.
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...
dehusman ... Other than paperwork there is NO, nada, zilch difference on how the commodity is placarded. That means the railroad handles it the same. It doesn't matter what the chemical composition is, any way you slice, any level of volatility, its just a flammable liquid and the railroad, in full compliance with the regulations and rules, will handle it in the same way.
The MM&A train had the right placard for crude, but showed the packing group as PG III instead of more flammable PG II. With PG III you can get an exception to use lesser grade tank cars, however, they were using the proper DOT 111 cars as they should have been.
Nevertheless, as you say it's handled the same. In the following link for UN 1267 placard, which covers all crude oils, shows it's highly flammable, explosive,and a rail tank car involved in in fire needs a 1/2 mile evacuation zone. The railroad doesn't need to know the relative flammability of the crude, they just need to read the standard guidebook response instructions.
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11018
Thanks, Larry, for pointing out the difference between combustible and flammable liquids. I knew there was a difference, but since it is a little more than seven years since I was actively concerned with the transport of hazardous materials, I did not remember just what it was.
Johnny
schlimm mudchicken schlimm 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. They have to. NO QUESTION. They can't even put a surcharge on the load to cover the risk. And if one railroad simply refused to transport the cargo in a DOT-111A car what would happen? Yes, yes, I know "common carrier." But exceptional circumstances have arisen. The conclusions are not so cut and dried as some would like to think they are. It is quite possible that the legal department and top execs of one of the the relevant railroads will conclude that it is their best interest financially to temporarily place an embargo on handling DOT-111A cars, pending investigations. They will weigh possible liability vs. being sued by the oil company/shipper and fines and loss of revenue.
mudchickenUP threatened and lost. 'nuf sed.
Hardly enough said. And BNSF is more impacted by Bakken.
schlimm mudchickenUP threatened and lost. 'nuf sed. Hardly enough said. And BNSF is more impacted by Bakken.
It really is. The railroads have no choice, the law is clear. I don't understand why these oil train threads always have one person asking the same question over and over. They don't like the answer people in the know give them, so they ask again hoping for a different answer. The railroads are going about it the legal way, having the AAR trying to get the tankers upgraded or phased out
The UP had a stronger case when it refused to haul chlorine, and they lost. To repeat Mudchicken, 'nuf said.
An "expensive model collector"
When the answers are informative, they are appreciated. There are serious issues here that go beyond the regulations. Public opinion has been aroused. Perhaps you simply don't like it when questions are raised beyond the obvious or superficial answers.
schlimm There are serious issues here that go beyond the regulations. Public opinion has been aroused
There are serious issues here that go beyond the regulations. Public opinion has been aroused
If it really is a serious issue, the regulations will be changed. Like it or not, the general public has little to no knowledge of what is really going on, as a result their opinion should be meaningless to the regulators. That is the way it should be.
n012944 The UP had a stronger case when it refused to haul chlorine, and they lost. To repeat Mudchicken, 'nuf said.
I think MC's "'nuf said" would have had more impact had he mentioned the the UP case involved chlorine.
- Erik
schlimmAnd if one railroad simply refused to transport the cargo in a DOT-111A car what would happen? Yes, yes, I know "common carrier." But exceptional circumstances have arisen. The conclusions are not so cut and dried as some would like to think they are. It is quite possible that the legal department and top execs of one of the the relevant railroads will conclude that it is their best interest financially to temporarily place an embargo on handling DOT-111A cars, pending investigations. They will weigh possible liability vs. being sued by the oil company/shipper and fines and loss of revenue.
I am not an expert but I believe current Federal Law concerning the interchange of rail cars trumps that approach. Railroads have to accept cars for interchange that meet Federally established standards. I don't know how any railroad can lay a legal foundation with the current Federal law on rail car interchange and "refuse" to transport a rail car that meets current interchange safety standards.
What legal grounds would the railroad have to "refuse" such a car. It would be like the railroad stating that Federal Interchange standards for railcars are null and void. Not sure that would hold up in a Federal Court.
erikem n012944 The UP had a stronger case when it refused to haul chlorine, and they lost. To repeat Mudchicken, 'nuf said. I think MC's "'nuf said" would have had more impact had he mentioned the the UP case involved chlorine. - Erik
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-19-chemrail_N.htm
Thanks for the post. It would be interesting to read the opinion on the case. certainly it is a precedent. But the public is far more aware now after the Bakken spills than it was about the chlorine issue. The STB is an agency which is far from immune from public/political pressure, then and now.
schlimm But the public is far more aware now after the Bakken spills than it was about the chlorine issue.
But the public is far more aware now after the Bakken spills than it was about the chlorine issue.
The public has been aware of the hazards of chemical transportation via rail for several decades. Circa thirty years ago there was considerable publicity and controversy regarding a train Dow Chemical moved from Midland, MI to Freeport, TX. It was a regular move, and was labeled "The Death Train" by the media. Public awareness was actually pretty good back the when only TV and newspapers were reporting it. The speed and persistence of today's media seeks to intensify the threat. Means of transport other than rail are not a viable option at this time.
schlimm Thanks for the post. It would be interesting to read the opinion on the case. certainly it is a precedent.
Thanks for the post. It would be interesting to read the opinion on the case. certainly it is a precedent.
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B/$file/39995.pdf
"In this decision, the Board is granting a petition for declaratory order to the extent necessary to clarify that Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has an obligation to quote common carrier rates and provide service for the transportation of chlorine"
"Railroads have a statutory common carrier obligation under 49 U.S.C. 11101 to provide transportation for commodities that have not been exempted from regulation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502. This obligation creates two interrelated requirements. Railroads must provide, in writing, common carrier rates to any person requesting them. 49 U.S.C. 11101(b). And, they must provide rail service pursuant to those rates upon reasonable request. 49 U.S.C. 11101(a)."
"Regardless, a rail carrier may not avoid its common carrier obligation to provide service"
"Court and Board precedent have addressed the extent of the common carrier obligation with regard to transporting hazardous materials. Rejecting the claim that railroads should not have a common carrier obligation to transport radioactive materials because of the extraordinary risks involved, the Board’s predecessor, the ICC, explained that “a carrier may not assert before this Commission that, as a general proposition, shipments meeting DOT and [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] requirements are too hazardous to transport.”16 In Akron, 611 F.2d at 1169, the court upheld the ICC’s holding that the common carrier obligation included the transportation of radioactive materials, stating that a “carrier may not ask the Commission to take cognizance of a claim that a commodity is absolutely too dangerous to transport if there are DOT … regulations governing such transport.” Thus, the common carrier obligation requires a railroad to transport hazardous materials where the appropriate agencies have promulgated comprehensive safety regulations"
As pointed out, the UP tried, and was denied. It is cut and dry. No need to ask the same question, regardless of of "public awareness."
The Dow "Death Train" was not without it's problems - I believe one of them derailed between Milford and Highland, just a mile or two from the high school. All the usual emergency responses (evacuations, etc) were involved, but there was no fire.
I'm sure there was great public interest at the time in the LP tanker BLEVE's in Kingman, Oneonta, and Crescent City, but it's hard to find a manifest freight without at least a few LP cars in it.
CSX used to run the "acid train" down the St Lawrence Sub in NY. Unless they saw a train at a crossing and noticed all the placarded tank cars, I don't think the public had a clue about the train or its potential for disaster.
I would opine that the Bakken crude train incidents will remain in the public consciousness a little longer than usual only because they are closely associated with "fracking," which is controversial in and of itself.
narig01A few questions How are shipments of Liquified Natural Gas handled? Are there unit trains of the stuff ir is that prohibited? And are they still permitted to be moved as a block or must they be seperated from other carloads of similar material(flammable gas)? I ask this because it occurs to me that the only other commodity with similar properties is LNG.
There are basically 4 groups of placarded cars.
The minimally hazardous cars such as marine pollutants, combustibles, hot commodities, low grade explosives, etc.
The "special hazard" cars such as high explosives and radioactive.
The toxic and poison inhalation hazard (TIH) cars such as chlorine, poison gas, etc
Everything else including flammable solids, liquids and gases, oxidizer, non-flammable gases, medium explosives, poisons, acids, etc.
The minimally hazardous cars have virtually no restrictions on train placement and handling. The special hazard and TIH cars cannot be next to cars from any other group except their own (and the minimally hazardous cars). The everything else group can be mixed and matched. You can put a car of LPG next to a car of sulphuric acid next to a car of fertilizer next to a car of crude oil next to a car of gasoline next to a car of metallic sodium next to a car of anyhdrous ammonia next to a car of carbon dioxide next to a car of ethylene oxide. All perfectly legal and within the rules. Happens thousands of times a day all over the nation.
Remember an ethanol train has the SAME placards and the SAME handling requirements as a crude oil train and it is way more volatile than crude oil. When the ethanol trains started there was a huge amount of publicity about them too.
n012944 erikem n012944 The UP had a stronger case when it refused to haul chlorine, and they lost. To repeat Mudchicken, 'nuf said. I think MC's "'nuf said" would have had more impact had he mentioned the the UP case involved chlorine. - Erik http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-19-chemrail_N.htm
Thanks for the link! FWIW, I was not doubting what Mudchicken wrote, my intent was to point out that the UP being told in no uncertain terms that they had to accept chlorine for shipment says lots about how the STB views common carrier obligations. The RR's were also very hesitant about shipping spent reactor fuel, though I would be less concerned about the spent fuel than a tank car of chlorine.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.