tree68 Nonetheless, there are those out there who would figure out a way to make it palatable...
There are ways. I suspect that to a typical meth cook, some of those ways are child's play.
I won't go into them. EverClear is good enough for me.
A. Yes, the shipper is responsible for having everything correct--bill of lading, making sure that the carrier (I dealt with truck lines and some air) has the proper placards. On my first shipment of "empty" gas cylinders, I had two classes that could not be shipped together, and the truck driver who picked it up noticed my error.
B. 200 proof ethanol--ethanol is hydroscopic and 200 hunderd proof will absorb water from the air until it is 190 proof (constant boiling mixture). If you must have 200 proof stuff, you have to keep air away from it; the little we had in chemistry lab was under benzene, and had a piece of sodium wire (to react with water that did get in) in it--not nice stuff to drink. The 190 proof that we had was supposedly denatured (I was told with phenolphthalein, which had a somewhat laxative effect).
Johnny
zardozHowever, since every diesel-powered locomotive carries diesel fuel, wouldn't they by definition also need to be placarded?
Found a document from Michigan, which includes the following:
Fuel tanks (liquid or gaseous) permanently mounted to a vehicle to fuel equipment on the vehicle is usually excepted from the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (FHMR). There are some restrictions: • The tanks must meet the requirements of Subpart E of Part 393 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). • The tanks must meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards. • The tanks must not be used as a packaging for hazardous materials. In other words, the tanks cannot be cargo (such as extra cylinders or portable tanks) to be used once on-site. The tanks must actually fuel the equipment on the vehicle. If all of these provisions are complied with, the tanks do not have to comply with the FHMR. If the tanks do not comply with any of these provisions, then the tanks are hazardous materials packages and all of the FHMR applies.
• The tanks must meet the requirements of Subpart E of Part 393 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR).
• The tanks must meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards.
• The tanks must not be used as a packaging for hazardous materials. In other words, the tanks cannot be cargo (such as extra cylinders or portable tanks) to be used once on-site. The tanks must actually fuel the equipment on the vehicle.
If all of these provisions are complied with, the tanks do not have to comply with the FHMR. If the tanks do not comply with any of these provisions, then the tanks are hazardous materials packages and all of the FHMR applies.
I'm sure the logic for locomotives is the same.
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...
That's like every tractor trailer carrying placards for the fuel they need. Nonsense. Also, quantity is a factor and every first responder knows a diesel locomotive has the potential to spill diesel fuel and are trained to respond accordingly.
ericsp Diesel fuel is combustible so I believe it does not need buffer cars. If they were carrying diesel fuel they should have been placarded 1202 or 1993.
Diesel fuel is combustible so I believe it does not need buffer cars. If they were carrying diesel fuel they should have been placarded 1202 or 1993.
RMEEverclear is very far from 'pure' - it's only about 190 proof.
True that. Still, 95% pure is still a lot closer to pure than the ~40% you find in most liquors. Nonetheless, there are those out there who would figure out a way to make it palatable... Or die trying.
tree68If it was "pure" ethanol, I suspect you'd encounter vandalism. Ever heard of "Everclear?"
Everclear is very far from 'pure' - it's only about 190 proof. "Pure" ethanol is anhydrous, 200 proof, and if you were to take a sip of it you would promptly be very, very sorry -- it will simultaneously scorch and dehydrate your mouth and lips.
I would assume that the same code (1170) would apply to distilled alcohol as to 'chemical' -- in fact, I'd expect a shipment to a mouthwash factory, or to a plant producing hand sanitizer, to be very similar to EverClear.
zugmannWe handle lots of 1170 tank cars. They are for a mouthwash factory.
Well, there you go! Learn something every day!
tree68 erikem I'd also wonder how clean the EtOH would have to be to get the 1170 classification. I doubt you're going to see "pure" ethanol in carload quantities. I don't know that you'd find it in truckload quantities - other than perhaps barrels in a box truck. If it was "pure" ethanol, I suspect you'd encounter vandalism. Ever heard of "Everclear?"
erikem I'd also wonder how clean the EtOH would have to be to get the 1170 classification.
I doubt you're going to see "pure" ethanol in carload quantities. I don't know that you'd find it in truckload quantities - other than perhaps barrels in a box truck.
If it was "pure" ethanol, I suspect you'd encounter vandalism. Ever heard of "Everclear?"
We handle lots of 1170 tank cars. They are for a mouthwash factory.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
ericspThe reason why I asked about biodiesel is that I see many tank cars with logos for biodiesel around here (none have placards). I suspect it may not be suitable for shipment by pipeline. If so, it is much more likely that the tank cars could have been carrying fuel for the railroad (or perhaps quarry) than if they are using diesel.
I don't think there is any great reason why fatty-acid methyl esters that have been fully 'treated' (for best use as a modern engine fuel, with additives, etc.) would be unsuitable for pipeline slugging; it's much more likely that the plants are located away from convenient pipelining points. The DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center indicates that B-5 is "sometimes shipped by pipeline" but that's probably because the blending is done at a refinery that commonly ships 'dinodiesel' in reasonable quantities.
Think of the 'biodiesel' emblem as cheap alternative-fuel promotion or advertising. (You wouldn't expect painting it on a pipeline to be as effective!) Whether it ships by rail or truck depends on the size of the operation, the proximity of a suitable rail operator, and the end use of the production in question (e.g., agricultural equipment, blending, etc.)
It is at least possible that the tankcars you see without placards are bringing in the oil stock used for the catalyzed esterification, which is likely to be no more hazardous than canola oil.
sandiego Some years back I went on a tour of an ethanol plant in Mason City, Iowa (out by Flint siding for you UP railroaders). Of course the topic of moonshine and drinking the product produced at the plant came up. Our host mentioned that the stuff was denatured with unleaded gasoline before shipping, but that the un-denatured product was no good for drinking anyway as it still had some aldehydes that cause some nasty hangovers. For beverage use ethanol is refined further to remove the aldehydes and other non-ethanol compounds. Kurt Hayek
Some years back I went on a tour of an ethanol plant in Mason City, Iowa (out by Flint siding for you UP railroaders). Of course the topic of moonshine and drinking the product produced at the plant came up. Our host mentioned that the stuff was denatured with unleaded gasoline before shipping, but that the un-denatured product was no good for drinking anyway as it still had some aldehydes that cause some nasty hangovers. For beverage use ethanol is refined further to remove the aldehydes and other non-ethanol compounds.
Kurt Hayek
Jeff
I would suspect it's more a consideration of quantity of use, and the sources of biodiesel vs conventional fuel.
At this point, moving biodiesel in the quantities needed may just be getting up to the point that even tank cars are needed, vs highway tankers.
RME For the record, there is no practical distinction in the UN or NA code used for biodiesel in any admixture (1202 and 1993 respectively), with the exception that the description (not the placard code) becomes "diesel fuel solution" or "gas oil solution" instead of just diesel fuel or gas oil when the biodiesel content is over B-5. Again, it would be interesting to know if there is a practical difference in the way 'diesel fuel' and 'diesel fuel solution' would be handled when encountered.
For the record, there is no practical distinction in the UN or NA code used for biodiesel in any admixture (1202 and 1993 respectively), with the exception that the description (not the placard code) becomes "diesel fuel solution" or "gas oil solution" instead of just diesel fuel or gas oil when the biodiesel content is over B-5. Again, it would be interesting to know if there is a practical difference in the way 'diesel fuel' and 'diesel fuel solution' would be handled when encountered.
The reason why I asked about biodiesel is that I see many tank cars with logos for biodiesel around here (none have placards). I suspect it may not be suitable for shipment by pipeline. If so, it is much more likely that the tank cars could have been carrying fuel for the railroad (or perhaps quarry) than if they are using diesel.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
erikemI'd also wonder how clean the EtOH would have to be to get the 1170 classification.
RME Again in the link you provided, the UN and NA codes for up to 5% gasoline denaturant in alcohol are code 1987, but the specific UN code for gasohol, 3475, can be applied even to very low (the document specifically references "up to 5% Gasoline Content) admixtures of gasoline in alcohol, the logical purpose of which would be to save on 'bitterant' by using gasoline (effectively!) as ethanol denaturant. Here again the PHMSA puts the distinction solely in the description ("Ethanol and Gasoline Mixture, 3, PGII) Note that we only go to placarding ethanol mixtures as UN 1203 from E-10 down (in other words, 90% or more gasoline). (Most gasoline going to service stations is 10% ethanol, so it makes a certain sense to have E-10 procedures be those for straight gasoline formulations in practice from a responder's standpoint, right?) PHMSA saw no need to give a special code callout to anything between E-20 and E-85 (I don't think any of those are used in extensive practical commerce); those are all probably 3475, and it would be interesting to find a reference or policy document that indicates precisely where 3475 would fringe over or transition to 1987 at 95% or greater EtOH. I suspect that the procedure for 1987 is likely to be less rigorous than that for 3475, so that would be more than mere semantics.
Again in the link you provided, the UN and NA codes for up to 5% gasoline denaturant in alcohol are code 1987, but the specific UN code for gasohol, 3475, can be applied even to very low (the document specifically references "up to 5% Gasoline Content) admixtures of gasoline in alcohol, the logical purpose of which would be to save on 'bitterant' by using gasoline (effectively!) as ethanol denaturant. Here again the PHMSA puts the distinction solely in the description ("Ethanol and Gasoline Mixture, 3, PGII)
Note that we only go to placarding ethanol mixtures as UN 1203 from E-10 down (in other words, 90% or more gasoline). (Most gasoline going to service stations is 10% ethanol, so it makes a certain sense to have E-10 procedures be those for straight gasoline formulations in practice from a responder's standpoint, right?)
PHMSA saw no need to give a special code callout to anything between E-20 and E-85 (I don't think any of those are used in extensive practical commerce); those are all probably 3475, and it would be interesting to find a reference or policy document that indicates precisely where 3475 would fringe over or transition to 1987 at 95% or greater EtOH. I suspect that the procedure for 1987 is likely to be less rigorous than that for 3475, so that would be more than mere semantics.
I'd also wonder how clean the EtOH would have to be to get the 1170 classification. It does make a bit of sense to classify "pure" ethanol (contains nothing but EtOH and water) differently from denatured alcohol. 100ppm of ethanol in water would likely be perfectly safe to drink (0.01%), where 5ppm of gasolene would be cause for concern.
My chem major co-workers have mentioned that any ethanol with less than 5% water by volume is likely to have some rather nasty stuff left over from the de-watering process.
PNWRMNM Murphy Siding Whose job is it to decide which is the correct placard to display, and who physically puts it on a tank car? The shipper must classify his material for all modes. By rail, the shipper applies placards. Mac McCulloch
Murphy Siding Whose job is it to decide which is the correct placard to display, and who physically puts it on a tank car?
Whose job is it to decide which is the correct placard to display, and who physically puts it on a tank car?
The shipper must classify his material for all modes. By rail, the shipper applies placards.
Mac McCulloch
Big fines can be levied if contents are identified or placarded improperly.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
RMEFor the record, there is no practical distinction in the UN or NA code used for biodiesel in any admixture (1202 and 1993 respectively), with the exception that the description (not the placard code) becomes "diesel fuel solution" or "gas oil solution" instead of just diesel fuel or gas oil when the biodiesel content is over B-5. Again, it would be interesting to know if there is a practical difference in the way 'diesel fuel' and 'diesel fuel solution' would be handled when encountered.
One simple method is to look at the guide referenced for a given substance. In this case, both 1202 and 1993, as well as 1203, all use guide 128. So from my frame of reference as a responding firefighter, they all get handled the same.
Ethanol, in its various forms, uses guide 127.
Both are the same for evacuation, etc.
Guide 127 calls for alcohol resistant foams, guide 128 does not (AFFF is fine).
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
tree68I can't say that I've ever encountered 1202 on the road or on rails. Searching for "fuel oil" in the ERG (2016 edition) on my phone gives 1993 and 1202 as possible ID's, but I suspect 1993 is generally used.
The link you provided explains it nicely (with a little additional reference). 1202 is the UN (United Nations ECOSOC) code; 1993 is the NA (North American) code. (It might be interesting to speculate whether there is intent to phase in 1202 for 1993 as the years go by and the hand of globalism, Agenda 21 and whatnot reaches out further. Perhaps same as we transitioned out 'ethyl alcohol' in favor of IUPAC 'ethanol')
ethanol by rail is usually placarded as 1987. Seems like I've heard that it is denatured using gasoline. In those quantities, it's going to get mixed with gasoline anyhow ...
I can't say that I've ever encountered 1202 on the road or on rails. Searching for "fuel oil" in the ERG (2016 edition) on my phone gives 1993 and 1202 as possible ID's, but I suspect 1993 is generally used.
1203 is usually used for gasoline, and it's also listed as gasohol, motor spirit, and petrol in the ERG.
You'll often see 1993 used for local fuel delivery trucks, where they might be carrying fuel oil, kerosene, and maybe even gasoline in the various compartments. It's kind of a catch-all ID.
1187 doesn't come up on my phone. The hard copy of the ERG (also 2016) is out in the truck, so I'll just go with what the phone tells me.
IIRC, ethanol by rail is usually placarded as 1987. Seems like I've heard that it is denatured using gasoline. In those quantities, it's going to get mixed with gasoline anyhow, so that's perfect.
Found this link that explains it all very nicely...
http://www.ndpetroleum.org/Document.aspx?Id=52
Shadow the Cats owner1202 is gasoline that has been mixed with water normally you get that from old storage tanks that are being removed from an abandoned gas station when they do tank removals and have to suction out any gas in the tank.
Where in God's name do you get this? It certainly wasn't the Orange Book.
1202 has been a 'fuel oil' code since forever (note that this can apply to even bottom grades of fuel oil, from #1 or #2 diesel right to #6 residual). It has nothing whatsoever to do with gasoline (1203), admixed or not.
1187 is denatured alcohol or how they ship ethanol long distances in a tank car or trailer.
1187 is deprecated in my version of the book. Denatured (modern) alcohol would be 1987, "alcohol not otherwise specified" and it has nothing to do with "ethanol" being shipped over any particular distance; in fact, it would likely not be ethanol at all (which is 1170) but isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol. Denaturing refers to adding a chemical such as denatonium benzoate that makes the substance extremely unpalatable. (Note that if methanol were being added as the denaturant, as was common for ethyl alcohol during Prohibition, the placard would have to be 1986, as the result would be a toxic methemoglobinuria hazard.)
1993 is for all grades of fuel oil.
I am beginning to think that the use of 1993 for "fuel oil" (it is nominally a catchall for flammable liquid, just as 1992 is for toxic flammable liquid) is related to whether it is flammable vs. combustible. Some light Bakken crude oil in unit trains might have a flash point in the flammable range (100F or below) and not combustible like the usual diesel/gas oil (100-200F) and therefore IDing it as a fuel stock with lower-than-normal-fuel-oil flashpoint might explain some of the 'double coding'.
Tree68 or one of the others familiar with the practical use of these codes will know more about the 1202-1993 difference ... whatever it is.
I typed 1202 (diesel fuel, fuel oil, gas oil, or heating oil), not 1203 (gasoline).
The 2012 ERG does not list any kind of gasoline as 1202.
Also, denatured alcohol is 1987, not 1187.
1202 is gasoline that has been mixed with water normally you get that from old storage tanks that are being removed from an abandoned gas station when they do tank removals and have to suction out any gas in the tank. 1187 is denatured alchohal or how they ship ethanoal long distances in a tank car or trailer. 1993 is for all grades of fuel oil. 1203 is for gasoline of all types. Oh yeah however the one you never want to go bang around you is a 1075 LPG tank car. However the ones marked poison gas would be the ones that do scare me the most and we do handle crap like that on a regular basis.
Diesel fuel is 1202.
1203 is gasoline, NOT diesel fuel. Taken from the "little orange book" (Emergency Response Guidebook).
ericsp Diesel fuel is combustible so I believe it does not need buffer cars. If they were carrying diesel fuel they should have been placarded 1202 or 1993. Besides quantity of fuel used another factor is distance to the nearest pipeline terminal. Both UP and BNSF probably use more fuel around here than D&I but refuel their locomotives from trucks since the yards are close to a pipeline terminal.
Besides quantity of fuel used another factor is distance to the nearest pipeline terminal. Both UP and BNSF probably use more fuel around here than D&I but refuel their locomotives from trucks since the yards are close to a pipeline terminal.
1203 is flammable
1993 is combustable
both are diesel fuel
Randy
Are they using biodiesel?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.