Euclid BaltACD Who but NS should have hired the firm to do the monitoring? Why on earth wouldn't the Goverment hire the scientists needed to do the tesing? This is way too sensitive to hire any private contractor to have the last word on whether the site is safe. There are endless reasons for private contractors to cheat, especially when the question of the outcome is so loaded. They have an incentive to cheat merely if it makes their job easier. They also might cheat if they know that telling the customer what they want to hear creates new work prospects in the future.
BaltACD Who but NS should have hired the firm to do the monitoring?
Why on earth wouldn't the Goverment hire the scientists needed to do the tesing?
This is way too sensitive to hire any private contractor to have the last word on whether the site is safe. There are endless reasons for private contractors to cheat, especially when the question of the outcome is so loaded. They have an incentive to cheat merely if it makes their job easier. They also might cheat if they know that telling the customer what they want to hear creates new work prospects in the future.
Which government? US? Ohio? East Palestine?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWhy on earth wouldn't the Government hire the scientists needed to do the testing?
What I'm seeing is that both federal and state EPA's are on scene and doing monitoring. Sounds like this outfit was hired to do spot checks - houses, etc.
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...
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Who but NS should have hired the firm to do the monitoring? Why on earth wouldn't the Goverment hire the scientists needed to do the tesing? This is way too sensitive to hire any private contractor to have the last word on whether the site is safe. There are endless reasons for private contractors to cheat, especially when the question of the outcome is so loaded. They have an incentive to cheat merely if it makes their job easier. They also might cheat if they know that telling the customer what they want to hear creates new work prospects in the future. Which government? US? Ohio? East Palestine?
The U.S. Government. I just expected that they would be doing all the testing since the EPA came in and announced that they would be handling the clean-up. Obviously they are very concerned about the chemical burn-off that was done. So it is mind boggling that they would defer to NS to tell the residents whether the site was safe to live in.
This is the mother of all conflicts of interest.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Who but NS should have hired the firm to do the monitoring? Why on earth wouldn't the Goverment hire the scientists needed to do the tesing? This is way too sensitive to hire any private contractor to have the last word on whether the site is safe. There are endless reasons for private contractors to cheat, especially when the question of the outcome is so loaded. They have an incentive to cheat merely if it makes their job easier. They also might cheat if they know that telling the customer what they want to hear creates new work prospects in the future. Which government? US? Ohio? East Palestine? The U.S. Government. I just expected that they would be doing all the testing since the EPA came in and announced that they would be handling the clean-up. Obviously they are very concerned about the chemical burn-off that was done. So it is mind boggling that they would defer to NS to tell the residents whether the site was safe to live in. This is the mother of all conflicts of interest.
It certainly is and this pattern has been reated iver and over. It gets compounded when agencies empowered to regulate use former employees of the industries they are supposed to watch.
The fox guarding the henhouse is not just a fable or cute saying.
charlie hebdo Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Who but NS should have hired the firm to do the monitoring? Why on earth wouldn't the Goverment hire the scientists needed to do the tesing? This is way too sensitive to hire any private contractor to have the last word on whether the site is safe. There are endless reasons for private contractors to cheat, especially when the question of the outcome is so loaded. They have an incentive to cheat merely if it makes their job easier. They also might cheat if they know that telling the customer what they want to hear creates new work prospects in the future. Which government? US? Ohio? East Palestine? The U.S. Government. I just expected that they would be doing all the testing since the EPA came in and announced that they would be handling the clean-up. Obviously they are very concerned about the chemical burn-off that was done. So it is mind boggling that they would defer to NS to tell the residents whether the site was safe to live in. This is the mother of all conflicts of interest. It certainly is and this pattern has been reated iver and over. It gets compounded when agencies empowered to regulate use former employees of the industries they are supposed to watch. The fox guarding the henhouse is not just a fable or cute saying.
The problem happens becuse when you are dealing with 'technical issues' in any industry - those employed in the industry know the technical ins and outs of the industry better than anyone that has no employment experience with the industry.
Not everyone is involved in hen house operations, thus from a regulation standpoint you secure personnel that are knowledgeable about hen house operations, even if that ends up being a fox. The fox wants more eggs and chicks from the hen house than even the farmer does.
BaltACDThe problem happens becuse when you are dealing with 'technical issues' in any industry - those employed in the industry know the technical ins and outs of the industry better than anyone that has no employment experience with the industry.
I have a little more faith in agencies that have people on staff that have a railroad pedigree in their resume when dealing with railroad problems. I worked on the railroad with several people that went on to work for NTSB and FRA.
Politicians and state level DOT's come up short to non-existant on railroad professional expertise. (rubber tired bubbas can't and shouldn't be railroad qualified) I'd be curious to know if there were graduates of AAR's Rattlesnake Junction emergency responder program making those decisions.
EPA is very capable of making very bad cleanup decisions - think Gold King mine.
You are entitled to your unqualified POV - but I'm not buying it or the emotions behind it in the least. Professionals don't operate outside of their area of expertise.
Can someone provide an update on how the population of East Palestine, Ohio, are doing? Did any require a visit vto a hospital because of smoke inhalation or whatever? Is life back bto normal?
Euclid... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud.
Wreck scenes are not now, never have been and never will be a 'qualified facility' for the disposition of HAZMAT. The on scene decisions are not between good and bad; those decisions are between bad and less bad. The one reality is that the scene is the scene and it cannot be moved to another location - you have to deal with the situation where it is, as it is and under the circumstance that exist at the time the decision is required.
daveklepperCan someone provide an update on how the population of East Palestine, Ohio, are doing? Did any require a visit vto a hospital because of smoke inhalation or whatever? Is life back bto normal?
David, just in case you missed it:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/aches-rashes-fear-trauma-remains-after-ohio-derailment-97787787
BaltACD Euclid ... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud. Wreck scenes are not now, never have been and never will be a 'qualified facility' for the disposition of HAZMAT. The on scene decisions are not between good and bad; those decisions are between bad and less bad. The one reality is that the scene is the scene and it cannot be moved to another location - you have to deal with the situation where it is, as it is and under the circumstance that exist at the time the decision is required.
Euclid ... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud.
My point was that there may have been a preferable way to deal with the problem that was far safer than a massive, flash burn-off. But a safer alternative might have taken more time. Nevertheless, it might have been much safer for the residents. So you have a dangerous quick remdy versus a slower, but safer remedy. Which one do you think Norfolk Southern would choose??
Which one do you think the EPA would have chosen? We already know the answer to that as evidenced by their demand that NS remove their newly repaired track, excavate the subsoil to remove and ship for processing at a waste incinerator, re-fill the trench with clean soil, and do the job right.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid ... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud. Wreck scenes are not now, never have been and never will be a 'qualified facility' for the disposition of HAZMAT. The on scene decisions are not between good and bad; those decisions are between bad and less bad. The one reality is that the scene is the scene and it cannot be moved to another location - you have to deal with the situation where it is, as it is and under the circumstance that exist at the time the decision is required. My point was NOT that their should have been a qualified hazardous waste incinerator on site. My point was that there may have been a preferable way to deal with the problem that was far safer than a massive, flash burn-off. But a safer alternative might have taken more time. Nevertheless, it might have been much safer for the residents. So you have a dangerous quick remdy versus a slower, but safer remedy. Which one do you think Norfolk Southern would choose?? Which one do you think the EPA would have chosen? We already know the answer to that as evidenced by their demand that NS remove their newly repaired track, excavate the subsoil to remove and ship for processing at a waste incinerator, re-fill the trench with clean soil, and do the job right.
My point was NOT that their should have been a qualified hazardous waste incinerator on site.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Euclid BaltACD Euclid ... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud. Wreck scenes are not now, never have been and never will be a 'qualified facility' for the disposition of HAZMAT. The on scene decisions are not between good and bad; those decisions are between bad and less bad. The one reality is that the scene is the scene and it cannot be moved to another location - you have to deal with the situation where it is, as it is and under the circumstance that exist at the time the decision is required. My point was NOT that their should have been a qualified hazardous waste incinerator on site. My point was that there may have been a preferable way to deal with the problem that was far safer than a massive, flash burn-off. But a safer alternative might have taken more time. Nevertheless, it might have been much safer for the residents. So you have a dangerous quick remdy versus a slower, but safer remedy. Which one do you think Norfolk Southern would choose?? Which one do you think the EPA would have chosen? We already know the answer to that as evidenced by their demand that NS remove their newly repaired track, excavate the subsoil to remove and ship for processing at a waste incinerator, re-fill the trench with clean soil, and do the job right. It's so easy to say what should have been done after the fact. What exactly would you have done?
It's so easy to say what should have been done after the fact. What exactly would you have done?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight is rarely better than 20/400.
EuclidIt may have been that if they waited it out, it may have exploded and done a lot of damage to buildings; or maybe not. Nobody knows if the possible explosion was a sure thing.
You'd better wait for the detailed NTSB report's discussion of the reasons for the intentional breach.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid BaltACD Euclid ... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud. Wreck scenes are not now, never have been and never will be a 'qualified facility' for the disposition of HAZMAT. The on scene decisions are not between good and bad; those decisions are between bad and less bad. The one reality is that the scene is the scene and it cannot be moved to another location - you have to deal with the situation where it is, as it is and under the circumstance that exist at the time the decision is required. My point was NOT that their should have been a qualified hazardous waste incinerator on site. My point was that there may have been a preferable way to deal with the problem that was far safer than a massive, flash burn-off. But a safer alternative might have taken more time. Nevertheless, it might have been much safer for the residents. So you have a dangerous quick remdy versus a slower, but safer remedy. Which one do you think Norfolk Southern would choose?? Which one do you think the EPA would have chosen? We already know the answer to that as evidenced by their demand that NS remove their newly repaired track, excavate the subsoil to remove and ship for processing at a waste incinerator, re-fill the trench with clean soil, and do the job right. It's so easy to say what should have been done after the fact. What exactly would you have done? I think I have made it pretty clear what I would have done, but I can sum it up for you. I would have gotten the EPA in there within the first few hours. Once in place, they would have taken over all issues related to cleanup. When they finally did come in a couple weeks later, they did say that they would make all decisions about the cleanup. So I believe they would have exercised that same authority if they were there immediately. There would have been no decision to proceed with intentional breaching of the 5 cars of vinyl chloride without the EPA approving it and taking full responsibility. I would trust that the EPA would fully error on the side of caution and take the safest approach in their view. According to the news, the EPA was not involved with the decision to breach and burn the 5 loads. According to the news, NS pushed the plan and the Governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania approved, but afterward the two Governors said they regretted it. But in any case, I would have had only the EPA make the decision about what to do about the 5 cars of vinyl chloride. The EPA would have had to decide on the risk of the 5 loads exploding if they were left intact. I don’t know what they would have decided, but I suspect it may have been much different from what was decided and done with the burn-off. If they felt they were facing imminent explosion of the 5 loads, the EPA may have gotten everyone out of the town as their first action. Then they may have just waited it out. Or maybe they would have done the same breach and burn. It may have been that if they waited it out, it may have exploded and done a lot of damage to buildings; or maybe not. Nobody knows if the possible explosion was a sure thing. Once stabilized, and if there was no occurrence of an explosion, and no breach and burn; I would have had the EPA put all effort into excavating all soil soaked with any of the chemicals that leaked. This would have required the NS to wait on relaying track and reopening the line until all of the contaminated soil was removed. At that point, the EPA would allow the NS to backfill and compact the excavation with clean fill; and then to lay new track. If this had all worked out in the most favorable way with the 5 loads of vinyl chloride, there would have been no intentional breaching, no spilling, and no explosion related to those 5 loads. Also, there would have been no delay in removing the chemical saturated soil as was the case with NS rushing to rebuild their track and then having to remove it and excavate the bad soil. The quicker such wet contaminated soil is removed, the quicker it stops the spilled chemicals from leaching deeper into the ground where it requires deeper excavation to recover them.
Murphy SidingIn a situation like this, why didn't the EPA insist on being there and in charge from day 1?
I believe that has to do with the Ohio governor refusing federal help at first. Then when there was public pushback, he did the ol' 180.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Overmod Euclid It may have been that if they waited it out, it may have exploded and done a lot of damage to buildings; or maybe not. Nobody knows if the possible explosion was a sure thing. Runaway polymerization with inadequate venting is just as sure a thing as anything in organic chemistry. Or are you going to tell me you understand the behavior of vinyl chloride so well that you can be so damn cocksure? You'd better wait for the detailed NTSB report's discussion of the reasons for the intentional breach.
Euclid It may have been that if they waited it out, it may have exploded and done a lot of damage to buildings; or maybe not. Nobody knows if the possible explosion was a sure thing.
Runaway polymerization with inadequate venting is just as sure a thing as anything in organic chemistry. Or are you going to tell me you understand the behavior of vinyl chloride so well that you can be so damn cocksure?
Euclid Overmod Euclid It may have been that if they waited it out, it may have exploded and done a lot of damage to buildings; or maybe not. Nobody knows if the possible explosion was a sure thing. Runaway polymerization with inadequate venting is just as sure a thing as anything in organic chemistry. Or are you going to tell me you understand the behavior of vinyl chloride so well that you can be so damn cocksure? You'd better wait for the detailed NTSB report's discussion of the reasons for the intentional breach. It sounds like you saying that runaway polymerization was a sure thing. All I am saying is that I am not sure it was a sure thing. How do you know that the conditions had been met or were going to be met? The news reported it only as a possibility to worry about, but never as a sure thing. They said the possibility was based on a rising temperature inside of the tank of one car. My main point was that I do not believe that NS and the two Governors should have made the decision to breach and burn-off the tank. I think the EPA should have made that decision. I also think we are free to speculate and offer opinions within the framework of what the news has reported. There is no obligation to hold comment until the NTSB reaches their conclusion.
The question is BAD or WORSE; when neither is a fully known at the outset.
The one thing I am certain of - none of those involved in making the decisions did it with the cavalier attitudes that some have displayed in this thread.
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid BaltACD Euclid ... If those chemicals were properly incinerated in a qualified facility, I’ll bet you would not see black smoke pouring out and forming a gigantic mushroom cloud. Wreck scenes are not now, never have been and never will be a 'qualified facility' for the disposition of HAZMAT. The on scene decisions are not between good and bad; those decisions are between bad and less bad. The one reality is that the scene is the scene and it cannot be moved to another location - you have to deal with the situation where it is, as it is and under the circumstance that exist at the time the decision is required. My point was NOT that their should have been a qualified hazardous waste incinerator on site. My point was that there may have been a preferable way to deal with the problem that was far safer than a massive, flash burn-off. But a safer alternative might have taken more time. Nevertheless, it might have been much safer for the residents. So you have a dangerous quick remdy versus a slower, but safer remedy. Which one do you think Norfolk Southern would choose?? Which one do you think the EPA would have chosen? We already know the answer to that as evidenced by their demand that NS remove their newly repaired track, excavate the subsoil to remove and ship for processing at a waste incinerator, re-fill the trench with clean soil, and do the job right. It's so easy to say what should have been done after the fact. What exactly would you have done? I think I have made it pretty clear what I would have done, but I can sum it up for you. I would have gotten the EPA in there within the first few hours. Once in place, they would have taken over all issues related to cleanup. When they finally did come in a couple weeks later, they did say that they would make all decisions about the cleanup. So I believe they would have exercised that same authority if they were there immediately. There would have been no decision to proceed with intentional breaching of the 5 cars of vinyl chloride without the EPA approving it and taking full responsibility. I would trust that the EPA would fully error on the side of caution and take the safest approach in their view. According to the news, the EPA was not involved with the decision to breach and burn the 5 loads. According to the news, NS pushed the plan and the Governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania approved, but afterward the two Governors said they regretted it. But in any case, I would have had only the EPA make the decision about what to do about the 5 cars of vinyl chloride. The EPA would have had to decide on the risk of the 5 loads exploding if they were left intact. I don’t know what they would have decided, but I suspect it may have been much different from what was decided and done with the burn-off. If they felt they were facing imminent explosion of the 5 loads, the EPA may have gotten everyone out of the town as their first action. Then they may have just waited it out. Or maybe they would have done the same breach and burn. It may have been that if they waited it out, it may have exploded and done a lot of damage to buildings; or maybe not. Nobody knows if the possible explosion was a sure thing. Once stabilized, and if there was no occurrence of an explosion, and no breach and burn; I would have had the EPA put all effort into excavating all soil soaked with any of the chemicals that leaked. This would have required the NS to wait on relaying track and reopening the line until all of the contaminated soil was removed. At that point, the EPA would allow the NS to backfill and compact the excavation with clean fill; and then to lay new track. If this had all worked out in the most favorable way with the 5 loads of vinyl chloride, there would have been no intentional breaching, no spilling, and no explosion related to those 5 loads. Also, there would have been no delay in removing the chemical saturated soil as was the case with NS rushing to rebuild their track and then having to remove it and excavate the bad soil. The quicker such wet contaminated soil is removed, the quicker it stops the spilled chemicals from leaching deeper into the ground where it requires deeper excavation to recover them. You seem to be saying they should have called in the EPA right away and let them call the shots. You then say the EPA may have done the exact same things NS did? In a situation like this, why didn't the EPA insist on being there and in charge from day 1?
You seem to be saying they should have called in the EPA right away and let them call the shots. You then say the EPA may have done the exact same things NS did? In a situation like this, why didn't the EPA insist on being there and in charge from day 1?
I don't know what the EPA would have done. But my point is that they should have been asked to approve the burn-off. For all I know maybe they did approve it. Maybe they had been asked for their approval and gave it in the days prior to them formally coming in and getting involved at the site.
But the way the news reported it, a day of two after the burn-off both Governors expressed regret for having approved it. They seemed worried that it had increased the danger at the site. They said that the planned burn-off was proposed and strongly advocated by NS. My take on the way it was written is that the Governors felt like they approved of the plan and later regretted it.
I don't know why they EPA was not there right at the start. There were countless news article asking that question and proposing explanations. As I recall, the whole story of the derailment was a sleeper for a week after it occurred because the world was chasing Chinese balloons.
Euclid It sounds like you saying that runaway polymerization was a sure thing.
It sounds like you saying that runaway polymerization was a sure thing.
It doesn't have to be anywhere near close to being a sure thing as to be something to be VERYconcerned about. The appropriate question with a risk like this is: "Are you absolutely sure it won't happen?"
EuclidI don't know what the EPA would have done. But my point is that they should have been asked to approve the burn-off. For all I know maybe they did approve it. Maybe they had been asked for their approval and gave it in the days prior to them formally coming in and getting involved at the site.
Now we're getting into an issue of states' rights.
From the EPA website:
That’s why as soon as EPA was notified of the Norfolk Southern train derailment on Friday, February 3, EPA personnel were on-site by 2 a.m. Saturday morning to assist with air monitoring. Since then, EPA has been boots-on-the-ground, leading robust air-quality testing – including with the state-of-the-art ASPECT plane and a mobile analytical laboratory – in and around East Palestine.
Further:
The state of Ohio, in partnership with local health agencies and local public water systems, is leading water sampling efforts. EPA is continuing to provide the state with additional support.
EPA has been far from a no-show in this incident.
Conhvicted One: Thankb you. Exactly the kind of report I needed. That population will comtinue to be on our Yeshiva's concern list at Sabbath morning payer.
But I do not suggest anger at NS. I'm certain Megantic was on their minds, the Fire Cheif's, and others involved. And they are doing their best, and its cdifficult to see what more they could do, other than buying the whole town and paying for resetlement of everyone in it.
An old dispatcher friend from the IC/ICG/CN informed me that for years the pejorative nickname for the NS was "Nazi Southern" at least in some rail circles.
charlie hebdo An old dispatcher friend from the IC/ICG/CN informed me that for years the pejorative nickname for the NS was "Nazi Southern" at least in some rail circles.
That nickname was in the context of the extreme discipline that NS would mete out to employees for the slightest rule infraction, which was off the scale compared to other carriers. Some argued that NS' harsh approach was justified by their industry leading safety stats at the time. Others thought it was mean-spirited and sadistic.
ns145 charlie hebdo An old dispatcher friend from the IC/ICG/CN informed me that for years the pejorative nickname for the NS was "Nazi Southern" at least in some rail circles. That nickname was in the context of the extreme discipline that NS would mete out to employees for the slightest rule infraction, which was off the scale compared to other carriers. Some argued that NS' harsh approach was justified by their industry leading safety stats at the time. Others thought it was mean-spirited and sadistic.
What happened to cause their safety stats to decline? PSR and the gimmick of stock buy-back mania to increase the value of executive stock options?
They've all gone through phases of excessive discipline. NS probably being the most consistent.
The worst times are those periods when business is slow. Mainly because they would have excess workers and a lot of managers trying to show their worth and justify their jobs. Until PSR, they hardly ever cut managers during slow times.
One way to tell which company was the worst at a particular time was the job insurance providers wouldn't issue new policies or upgrade existing ones for their employees.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.