NS serious derailment late feb 3 ( ~2100 )

[ns145]

charlie hebdo

Reviewing past actions is necessary to make progress. Refusal to do so with tell tale phrases like "Monday morning quarterbacking" is simply not admitting errors. As to that phrase, if you played football you would know that critiqueing is exactly what coaches and players do to improve.

And here is the CEO of NS waffling and weaseling:

https://apnews.com/article/ohio-train-derailment-ceo-norfolk-southern-railroad-e709db3c9945a35c8b92b99e2ba82b2e

 

 

 

I don't know what you are upset about.  Alan Shaw got a bipartisan beat down in that hearing.  The more "weaseley" he looked the better.  And I think its pretty safe to say that additional regs are coming for the railroad industry.  What those regs will actually turn out to be is a little murky right now, but something is going to happen.  NS sees that and is trying to get out in front of it.  I think that's a good thing.

[charlie hebdo]

tree68

 

 

Charlie hebdo

Refusal to do so with tell tale phrases like "Monday morning quarterbacking" is simply not admitting errors.

 

 

We aren't part of the official discussion.  We're simply discussing it.  Anything offered here is Monday morning quarterbacking.  "Coulda, woulda, shoulda."

The CEO simply said "we're trying." I didn't see any waffling or weaseling.  In fact, more that 3/4 of that video was the senator's monologue. 

It's not like they're purposely causing the incidents - they cost money.  Of course, it goes back to the Pinto Principle - do the incidents cost less than the fixes?

Again, I'm not saying there is no blame to be laid.  But we need more information first.

How many derailments occurred on other railroads in the past few weeks?  

 

The Ohio Attorney General filed a lawsuit against NS in federal court. I suppose he is Monday morning quarterbacking even though he has facts at his disposal?

https://www.koamnewsnow.com/news/national-news/ohio-attorney-general-files-federal-lawsuit-against-norfolk-southern-over-east-palestine-derailment/article_0263f577-6600-5164-b3bc-3d2ba1331164.html

I suppose the usual corporate defenders will say he's grandstanding?

"This derailment was entirely avoidable," Yost said at a news conference Tuesday. "I'm concerned that Norfolk Southern may be putting profits for their own company above the health and safety of the cities and communities they operate in."

 

As to the NS CEO (for now) he could not give a straightforward yes or no in answer (several times) to whether or not NS will provide restitution to residents. That is the definition of weaseling.

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

The Ohio Attorney General filed a lawsuit against NS in federal court. I suppose he is Monday morning quarterbacking even though he has facts at his disposal?

Nope - not Monday morning quarterbacking.  He's apparently got the information he needs to proceed.  I doubt he'll be doing the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" dance.

[rdamon]

There would probably be calls for his resignation if he didn't file.

The complaint seems pretty complete. It doesn't look like the cut and paste job from the Amtrak grade crossing incident in Missouri. 

https://ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/2023-03-14-Norfolk-Southern-Complaint-FILED.aspx

[tree68]

rdamon

The complaint seems pretty complete. It doesn't look like the cut and paste job from the Amtrak grade crossing incident in Missouri. 

The complaint asks for reimbursement, and says why.  Pretty plain vanilla.  

There are certainly implications that NS's safety culture is lacking.  

One bullet point says that a railcar was on fire 20 miles before the derailment.  I think that's an overstatement, as it was the bearing, not the railcar itself.

The suit is hardly a surprise.  It probably lays the groundwork for lesser parties to file similar suits.

 

[Euclid]

If the polymerization of vinyl chloride causes heat, what causes the polymerization?

 

This source says that heat causes polymerization.  Other sources say that polymerization causes heat. 

 

The substance can form explosive peroxides under specific circumstances. The substance readily polymerizes due to heating and under the influence of air, light and on contact with a catalyst, strong oxidizing agents and metals such as copper and aluminum. This generates fire or explosion hazard.

ICSC 0082 - VINYL CHLORIDE - ILO

 

 

There was news that said the tank cars were being continuously sprayed with water from fixed hoses to keep them cool.  The article said the hoses were suddenly shut off and they wondered why this was done.  Were the hoses set up to cool the cars after they had been heated by the general fire caused by the derailment?  If a means of cooling would prevent polymerization, why was that not employed?

 

If it was polymerization that was causing the heat to build in the one tank car, why was the polymerization only affecting one out of the five tank cars?

 

If an explosion could have been imminent, why was it acceptable to take the risk of setting charges under the tank cars to breech them for the burn off?  We were told that if it exploded, debris, shrapnel, and the vinyl chloride could be blown out a long distance from the explosion and destroy buildings, and possibly kill people who were not far enough away.  So who would have taken the risk of planting the explosives or attending to other details associated with setting up the burn off when this explosion was possible at any moment? 

 

Here is what the NS report says:

“…tank cars (railcars 28–31 and 55) carrying 115,580 gallons of vinyl chloride continued to concern authorities because the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”

 

This explanation from the report sounds like there was merely a chance of explosion, and there was nothing that would have prohibited that chance from being infinitesimal.  While there may have been good reason for the burn off, the report does not begin to make the case for it.  They could have told us how fast the temperature was rising, and what the temperatures were throughout that rise.  Why leave that out? 

 

How did they take the temperature of the tank contents when it was un-breeched?  Is there a thermometer built into the tank that can be read from the exterior?    

 

Obviously, this move required the weighing of the risk of the burn off against the risk of the explosion. 

 

However the report makes no mention of the risk of the burn off, yet it is well established that even if the combustion of the burn off was complete, there was still be risk from the fallout of materials produced by the incineration process of the burn off.  As I recall, some of those materials were hydrochloric acid, phosgene, and dioxin. What about the vinyl chloride itself?  Is it possible that some of that material was carried up and dissipated unburned?

[Overmod]

Look here, it doesn't take more than 20 minutes actually googling industrial sources to figure out what polymerization is, and why for vinyl chloride it's exothermic.

The temperature in the tank car could be easily read by a laser-designated IR spot thermometer -- multiple readings over a space of several minutes would tell you the temperature, and there is a simple relationship for vinyl chloride (likewise easily found on the Web) that relates temperature to pressure.

If the temperature of a tankcar full of vinyl chloride is rising, it's either because it's heated externally or polymerization has been initiated.  The formation of peroxides is not relevant here.

If the temperature is rising and the pressure is not actively venting, the rate of polymerization will continue increasing.  That is going to result in additional heating of the unpolymerized monomer, and when you look at the temperature-pressure diagram for vinyl chloride monomer you will get some idea of the pressure this will develop inside the tank.

Some reports indicated there was an issue with the pressure relief valve on that particular car -- whether it was damaged or its relief capability inadequate, I don't know and will be waiting for the NTSB to confirm.  Presumably there is one or more rupture disks on the car that will go before the internal pressure reaches tens of thousands of psi, and when that happens, you have the equivalent area of a controlled breach in... whatever direction the rupture disk happened to be pointing on a wrecked car.  Again I expect the NTSB report to contain this information based on data obtained before the controlled breach.

The concern I have is with the controlled breach of all five cars together, which assumes that if the 'polymerizing' car exploded or was breached it would cause explosions in the others.  Since I do not yet know how close the polymerizing car was to the others -- I see groups of TILX cars all the time, so it's possible this was such a block -- this again needs to wait for the NTSB report before we can assess it properly.

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

This source says that heat causes polymerization.  Other sources say that polymerization causes heat.

This isn't an either/or, both are true.  If it gets hot enough, it will trigger the polymerization and once the polymerization starts it will generate even more heat.

Euclid

If it was polymerization that was causing the heat to build in the one tank car, why was the polymerization only affecting one out of the five tank cars?

It's possible that the other cars didn't get hot enough to trigger the polymerization.  Maybe they wern't as close to the fire?  I've also read that the pressure relief valves on some cars failed, which would allow the pressure to build up and possibly allow the polymerization to initiate at a lower temperature.

 

[Shadow the Cats owner]

What's it's looking like more and more on a daily basis for everyone is this.  NS instead of letting a certified hazmat contractor and firefighting combined attack on the fire get involved and put out the fire then remove the chemicals involved decided that blowing up 55k gallons of some of the nastiest crap used to burn.  All so they could reopen the tracks faster.  

[Overmod]

Someone with a better Internet connection can download the molecular diagram of vinyl chloride, and how it polymerizes to polyvinyl chloride (aka PVC plastic).

Energy has to be put into vinyl chloride molecules before they will react with each other.  (This would be pretty obvious from first Euclidean principles because otherwise you couldn't transport the bulk monomer in a tank car in the first place.)  This is similar to the 'activation energy' in combustion, where you have to heat something with a match before it sustains combustion.

As it happens, when the two vinyl chloride molecules above actually polymerize, the new bonds are lower-energy (more stable) and the surplus energy is released as heat.

If enough molecules of vinyl chloride are polymerizing at the same time, the net heat released starts heating the bulk mass of unreacted vinyl chloride.  Here a different characteristic of vinyl chloride becomes relevant -- a little heat results in a great deal of pressure increase.  And pressure increase makes polymerization more likely.

This doesn't start as a runaway 'chain reaction' -- but if the temperature is observed to be rising, it won't be at a 'steady' rate, and there will come a point where the combination of temperature and pressure results in the latter exceeding the rupture strength of the car, if the car's relief safeties aren't effective.  And vapor will form very promptly in all the unreacted volume of monomer when the car ruptures, so the breach will constitute a boiling-liquid expanding-vapor explosion.  There will almost certainly be some ignition source within the expanding vapor cloud, and combustion will greatly increase the expansion of the developing BLEVE.

Now, one of the points of a 'controlled release' -- properly implemented -- is that bot the force and the expanding stream of material can be somewhat directed, away from populated areas or other cars of hazmat or whatever.  Note that a command decision has to be made as to what happens to that expanding liquid cloud -- do you ignite it, or not?  Vinyl chloride is a liquid at the ambient outside temperature during the accident, so if you don't ignite the BLEVE you'll have plenty of blobs of vinyl chloride falling out... into the ballast, into any nearby yards, into rivers and streams... and the water in the latter weighs less than the vinyl chloride, so the blobs sink to the bottom until the water temperature rises in the spring, or somebody stirs them up (and you get a sheen on the surface while most of the blob sinks back to the bottom).   Meanwhile if some part of the BLEVE cloud is still a critical mixture or better and encounters a flame source, you'll still get the bang and the black smoke, but unexpectedly and now uncontrollably.

So you'll find very little consensus that the incident car, with the runaway temperature rise due to polymerization, both needed to have its pressure relieved and the release cloud 'flared'.

One 'real' issue is whether all five cars needed to be breached and flared simultaneously; a follow-on issue -- one which I personally think is going to get extensive attention -- is why the flaring took such a long time after breach, going by the drone video.  You can clearly see extensive BLEVE-like expansion of the white unreacted material before the cloud turns black -- in my opinion proper flameholding ignition shouldn't have allowed that.

 

[Shadow the Cats owner]

My company carries monomers on a fairly regular basis and in 25 ton lots in tank trailers.  Our standard practice demanded by our insurance provider is instead of breaching and burning off in any serious accident where fire gets involved is blanket extinguishing with either CO2 or water fogging or firefighting foam.  The last thing you ever want to do is release a flammable liquid into a active fire especially something that tends to react exothermoic in how it reacts with itself.  Someone failed firefighting 101 in this case and if it was someone at NS then Even King Kong hands aren't big enough for the pain they are about to go through.  

[Euclid]

Okay thanks Overmod and CSX Robert,

 

Is there any way that polymerization can start without heating the vinyl chloride?

 

So, as I understand, polymerization in vinyl chloride can be initiated by the application of heat to it.  Once initiated, the polymerization reaction of the vinyl chloride can itself produce more heat, thus accelerating the polymerization reaction.  This cycle could create a runaway of rising temperature, thus increasing the vessel pressure to the point where the vessel bursts.   

 

What about the circumstance in which the vinyl chloride is not experiencing temperature rise, and is not in a polymerization reaction?  Can that vinyl chloride suddenly start the process of polymerization for some reason besides adding heat to it?  I understand the answer is no. 

 

We don’t know if there was ever any polymerization occurring on any of the five cars. And if there was polymerization, it had to have been initiated by the overheating of the car contents prior to the start of polymerization.  And if there had been no heating sufficient to cause polymerization, there would have been no polymerization. 

 

However, it would have been possible for the vinyl chloride to have been heated by a cause other than polymerization.  Such a cause for raising the temperature may have been sunlight striking the tank car along with the rising ambient temperature. Such heating may not have been very aggressive.  It may have raised the temperature of the vinyl chloride only by one degree, and not have initiated any polymerization.  Yet this heat rise may have been measured and reported by NS as a possible indication of polymerization in progress.  And they would have been correct in saying that even though the temperature never continued to rise high enough to initiate polymerization.

 

All we know is that the temperature was rising in one of the five cars, but we don’t know anything about the rate of rise, or temperatures within the range of rise.  All we can conclude is that polymerization was a possibility.

 

If they were to produce their temperature data, it would show whether the burn off was a reasonable move; which would be especially pertinent considering the danger risk of the burn off.  

 

I don’t see how anyone can conclude that there was not massive exposure of the public to the fallout from the fireball cloud of chunky black smoke. 

 

If they were really convinced that an explosion was immanent, I would expect them to have immediately focused on getting all people as far away as possible.

 

Instead, they spent a day or more digging a trench, and setting up the burn off with people working in the danger zone. 

 

If they had not done the controlled burn how would they have proceeded with the cleanup?  I have not found any source that says the cleanup would have been impossible without first burning off the loads of vinyl chloride.  So how would the loaded, derailed tank cars have been dealt with to secure and remove them from the wreck site if no controlled burn was used?

[tree68]

Euclid

I don’t see how anyone can conclude that there was not massive exposure of the public to the fallout from the fireball cloud of chunky black smoke.

They were aware.  Air monitoring was already taking place - remember, there was already a fire before the planned controlled venting.  The likely question was which was worse - putting the smoke in the air and letting it dissipate that way, or taking a chance on the mechanical damage from an explosion and the uncontrolled spreading of the product should an explosion occur.     

If they were really convinced that an explosion was imminent, I would expect them to have immediately focused on getting all people as far away as possible.

That evacuation was already in place as the result of the original incident.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

I don’t see how anyone can conclude that there was not massive exposure of the public to the fallout from the fireball cloud of chunky black smoke.

 

 

They were aware.  Air monitoring was already taking place - remember, there was already a fire before the planned controlled venting.  The likely question was which was worse - putting the smoke in the air and letting it dissipate that way, or taking a chance on the mechanical damage from an explosion and the uncontrolled spreading of the product should an explosion occur.     

 

If they were really convinced that an explosion was imminent, I would expect them to have immediately focused on getting all people as far away as possible.

 

That evacuation was already in place as the result of the original incident.

 

 

Yes I know there was already an evacuation in place but, that was a limited range evacuation.  I am referring to an evacuation to get everyone out of the range of possible shrapnel and the fallout of dangerous chemicals.  They obviously were not convinced that an explosion was imminent because they were willing to work around the derailment for a day or more after their warning, and subject themselves and the town to very risk of the devastating explosion they had said they were worried about. 

 

They said that an explosion could happen at any moment and so that mandated the controlled burn.  They said it was necessary in order to save lives and buildings from flying shrapnel if the explosion occurred.

 

The story does not add up.  In my opinion, if they really believed what they told us, they would have dropped everything, and moved everyone in town out to a safe range and waited it out for either the possible explosion or some other form of stabilization.  They never did that, and it put everyone in town plus all the buildings at risk of instant death and destruction if the tank cars exploded before they finished their day of work setting up the burn off.    

 

And as for the burn off risk, it was entirely well known that the fireball fallout would include the strong possibility of dioxin and vinyl chloride falling directly onto probably everyone in town for several days.  And that was bound to happen without any speculation while they never even bothered to quantify the risk of the polymerization explosion if it did happen to occur.   

 

If they still wanted to go ahead with the controlled burn without any delay, then they should have let the crews keep working on the setup, but simultaneously not wasted one second in evacuating the town.  They could then decide later whether to let the people re-enter the town.  Maybe they would stay out until the fallout had dissipated, and more extensive testing was done to make sure it is safe to return.  That would have been the rational safe plan, considering the emergency presented by the possible polymerization explosion. 

[Erik_Mag]

Euclid

Is there any way that polymerization can start without heating the vinyl chloride?

You don't need heat for polymerization to occur, the reaction occurs much more slowly at low temperatures. Heating is done mainly to speed up reactions and getting the last ~2% of the monomers to link can take several times that it takes to go from 0% linked (unpolymerized) to ~98% linked (almost fully polymerized).

For a quick and dirty example of runaway polyemerization, take a full syringe set of Devcon 2 ton epoxy, put it in a small heat resistant disposable container and mix well. The stuff will "kick-off" (undergo very rapid polymerization) in 5 to 10 minutes, getting very hot in the process.

[tree68]

Euclid

Yes I know there was already an evacuation in place but, that was a limited range evacuation.  I am referring to an evacuation to get everyone out of the range of possible shrapnel and the fallout of dangerous chemicals.

Like this?  From a press release by the state of Ohio...

(EAST PALESTINE, Ohio)— Following new modeling information conducted this morning by the Ohio National Guard and U.S. Department of Defense, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro are ordering an immediate evacuation in a one-mile by two-mile area surrounding East Palestine which includes parts of both Ohio and Pennsylvania.

https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestine-update-evacuation-area-extended-controlled-release-of-rail-car-contents-planned-for-3-30-pm-02062023

Is this what you had in mind?  I think they had it handled.

 

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

Yes I know there was already an evacuation in place but, that was a limited range evacuation.  I am referring to an evacuation to get everyone out of the range of possible shrapnel and the fallout of dangerous chemicals.

 

 

Like this?  From a press release by the state of Ohio...

 

 

(EAST PALESTINE, Ohio)— Following new modeling information conducted this morning by the Ohio National Guard and U.S. Department of Defense, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro are ordering an immediate evacuation in a one-mile by two-mile area surrounding East Palestine which includes parts of both Ohio and Pennsylvania.

 

 

https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestine-update-evacuation-area-extended-controlled-release-of-rail-car-contents-planned-for-3-30-pm-02062023

Is this what you had in mind?  I think they had it handled.

No, that's not what I had in mind.  That is the first and only evacuation that was done.  It may have been adequate to protect from flying shrapnel, but I certainly would not have trusted it to protect from adverse chemical exposure.  Notice they say “Anyone who remains in the yellow impacted area is at a high risk of severe injury, including skin burns and serious lung damage.”  If I am not mistaken, that is the boundary of the evacuation.  So one foot outside of that zone of severe injury, it is perfectly safe.  That does not make any sense. 

 

The legend refers to areas of red, yellow, and white.  Where is the white?  Is the town development to the left of the map part of the evacuation or not?  In any case, I was suggesting an evacuation that took everyone out of any risk of exposure to blast effects or chemicals; including the fallout during its phase. 

 

So what I was suggesting would have been far larger than what was done.  The evacuation that was done makes no accommodation for the risk of the fallout.  There is no reason to assume the injury risk of the fallout exposure was less than the injury risk of an explosion. Besides that, the fallout exposure was inevitable whereas the explosion was only a speculative theory of a possibility. 

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

They said that an explosion could happen at any moment...

Did they?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  I've seen where they said if they didn't do the burn off it would lead to an explosion, but nowhere have I seen that they said it could happen "at any moment."  It appears that they felt they had enough time to get in there and do the burn off before it got to the point of exploding.

[Overmod]

Euclid

They said that an explosion could happen at any moment and so that mandated the controlled burn.  They said it was necessary in order to save lives and buildings from flying shrapnel if the explosion occurred.

OK, that does it.

I want a SPECIFIC reference as to who this "they" was, and precise times it was said.  Links will do, but they have to contain the indicated information as stated.

[Euclid]

CSX Robert

 

 

Euclid

They said that an explosion could happen at any moment...

 

 

Did they?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  I've seen where they said if they didn't do the burn off it would lead to an explosion, but nowhere have I seen that they said it could happen "at any moment."  It appears that they felt they had enough time to get in there and do the burn off before it got to the point of exploding.

 

 

 

They said:  “…the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.” 

 

When they said that, it had to follow that the possible explosion could happen any time in the future.  So it is perfectly logical to say (according to them) an explosion could happen any moment following their announcement. 

 

So when I said:

 

 “They said that an explosion could happen at any moment,” I was not directly quoting them.  But it was true information based on what they said.  “Could happen any moment” does not mean would happen in a moment or extremely soon. 

 

If it is not “could happen any moment” how much time would you assume you had before it did happen?  What time increment of safety would you assume if you had to set up the breech and burn details near those tank cars? 

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

 

Euclid

They said that an explosion could happen at any moment and so that mandated the controlled burn.  They said it was necessary in order to save lives and buildings from flying shrapnel if the explosion occurred.

 

 

OK, that does it.

 

I want a SPECIFIC reference as to who this "they" was, and precise times it was said.  Links will do, but they have to contain the indicated information as stated.

 

"They" is NS Ry., and they said it in their accident report as I quoted in some posts up where it is highlighted in blue.  I will check on the date of that report, but it had to be after the wreck and prior to the burn off. 

In checking, it is the sixth post from the top of this page, second paragraph in blue, the report by the NS Ry., as follows:

Here is what the NS report says:

“…tank cars (railcars 28–31 and 55) carrying 115,580 gallons of vinyl chloride continued to concern authorities because the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”

 

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

They said:  “…the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”    When they said that, it had to follow that the possible explosion could happen any time in the future.  So it is perfectly logical to say (according to them) an explosion could happen any moment following their announcement.

From "which could pose an explosion hazard" to "an explosion could happen any moment"?  That's quite a leap there.  If I'm explaining a situation and I think an explosin could happen "at any moment,"  then I'm going to say it could happen at any moment.

Euclid

If it is not “could happen any moment” how much time would you assume you had before it did happen?  What time increment of safety would you assume if you had to set up the breech and burn details near those tank cars? 

I would not assume anything, but again, since they proceeded with the burn off it certainly appears they thought they had time for that.

[Euclid]

CSX Robert

 

 

Euclid

They said:  “…the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”    When they said that, it had to follow that the possible explosion could happen any time in the future.  So it is perfectly logical to say (according to them) an explosion could happen any moment following their announcement.

 

 

From "which could pose an explosion hazard" to "an explosion could happen any moment"?  That's quite a leap there.  If I'm explaining a situation and I think an explosin could happen "at any moment,"  then I'm going to say it could happen at any moment.

 

 

Euclid

If it is not “could happen any moment” how much time would you assume you had before it did happen?  What time increment of safety would you assume if you had to set up the breech and burn details near those tank cars? 

 

 

I would not assume anything, but again, since they proceeded with the burn off it certainly appears they thought they had time for that.

 

 

 

If you don't assume anything, why assume that the explosion would have happend at all?  Their warning was only that an explosion could happen.   They can't have it both ways.  

Without a specific start point for their warning, the start point had to have begun the moment they issued the warning.  You are willing to assume that was not the case, and yet you say you don't want to assume anything.   

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

 

 

Overmod

 

 

Euclid

They said that an explosion could happen at any moment and so that mandated the controlled burn.  They said it was necessary in order to save lives and buildings from flying shrapnel if the explosion occurred.

 

 

OK, that does it.

 

I want a SPECIFIC reference as to who this "they" was, and precise times it was said.  Links will do, but they have to contain the indicated information as stated.

 

 

 

 

"They" is NS Ry., and they said it in their accident report as I quoted in some posts up where it is highlighted in blue.  I will check on the date of that report, but it had to be after the wreck and prior to the burn off. 

In checking, it is the sixth post from the top of this page, second paragraph in blue, the report by the NS Ry., as follows:

Here is what the NS report says:

“…tank cars (railcars 28–31 and 55) carrying 115,580 gallons of vinyl chloride continued to concern authorities because the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”

 

 

Actually, they is the NTSB.  That quote is from the NTSB preliminary report and not a Norfolk Southern description of the situation but an after the fact description of what happened.

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

If you don't assume anything, why assume that the explosion would have happend at all?  Their warning was only that an explosion could happen.   They can't have it both ways.  

You asked me what I would assume given their description. Again, I would not assume anything.  I don't think they assumed an explosion would happen either, but they knew it could, so they had to weight the risk of allowing a possible explosion versus doing the burn off.

You seem to think the explosion was either definitely giong to happen or definitely not going to happen, but that doesn't appear to be the case; however, even if it's not definitely going to happen, if it can you have to consider the consequences if it does.

[Overmod]

Euclid

In checking, it is the sixth post from the top of this page, second paragraph in blue, the report by the NS Ry., as follows: Here is what the NS report says: “…tank cars (railcars 28–31 and 55) carrying 115,580 gallons of vinyl chloride continued to concern authorities because the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”

That's nice, but it DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Where is the specific reference for that quote of yours, a very direct and unambiguous quote, "They said that an explosion could happen at any moment..."

I'll wait.

[tree68]

Euclid

No, that's not what I had in mind. 

Clearly.  Sounds like you should have been there, as you are better qualified than the people who were actually there (EPA, Ohio National Guard, etc).

We should all be humbled to be in the presence of such greatness.

BTW, the "white" area is outlined by the black line.  

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

 

Euclid

In checking, it is the sixth post from the top of this page, second paragraph in blue, the report by the NS Ry., as follows: Here is what the NS report says: “…tank cars (railcars 28–31 and 55) carrying 115,580 gallons of vinyl chloride continued to concern authorities because the temperature inside one tank car was still rising. This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”

 

 

That's nice, but it DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

Where is the specific reference for that quote of yours, a very direct and unambiguous quote, "They said that an explosion could happen at any moment..."

I'll wait.

 

The quote in blue is from the NTSB report, and the “they” I refer to are authorities and responders mentioned in the report. 

 

 

I said this:

 

“They said that an explosion could happen at any moment”

 

The quotation marks are because that is quoting me to explain this now.

 

But when I said, they said that an explosion could happen at any moment, I was not quoting them, and did not use quotation marks.  I was paraphrasing then in order to illustrate a fact that I believe had to be a basic truth of what they actually said.

 

What they actually said was, “This increase in temperature suggested that the vinyl chloride was undergoing a polymerization reaction, which could pose an explosion hazard.”

 

They did not put any delay into their speculation about an explosion, and they said it could happen.  So it could happen anytime after the words left their mouth up until some development canceled the risk of an explosion.  My point was that “at any moment” fits into their time frame that began the instant they said it.  And yet it seems like they could not have actually believed that it would be any moment because they accepted the fact of people working in close proximity to the potential explosion long after they predicted that it could happen. 

 

My point is that this might be a case of crying wolf.  There was no explosion and this may show that the burn off saved the day; or that there never was a risk of explosion.  We will never know.  People will believe what they want to believe.  But although East Palestine avoided an explosion of the loaded tank cars, it did not avoid the mushroom cloud and the chemical uncertainty it left behind.  Basically, I do not believe that mushroom cloud of fallout was necessary.  I think they could have avoided that along with any hazard associated with the tank cars loaded with the vinyl chloride.  But it would have taken more time. 

[CSX Robert]

https://dayton247now.com/news/local/officials-will-control-release-of-chemicals-from-cars-involved-in-train-derailment

Scott Deutsch, regional manager of hazardous materials at Norfolk Southern, talking before the controlled burn:

"“If we don’t do that, the car could continue to polymerize and the entire car will break apart. We can’t control where that goes.”

“So, that’s the reason for getting moving on this, so we don’t have to run into that – letting the car do it itself. We want to be able to control that situation."

 

"could continue to" - means it's not definite, but there is a possiblity.  I've never seen anywhere that they said or implied it was definite, but you certainly cannot ignore the possibility.

"the reason for getting moving on this, so we don’t have to run into that" - doesn't sound to me like he thought it could explode "at any moment," but that if they moved quickly they had time to eliminate the possibility.

[tree68]

CSX Robert

"could continue to" - means it's not definite, but there is a possiblity.  I've never seen anywhere that they said or implied it was definite, but you certainly cannot ignore the possibility.

It's those dreaded shades of gray...