Oil train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Québec 07-06-2013

Cowford wrote:The articles indicate that Irving was the importer of record so is, therefore, responsible for hazmat communication compliance. I don't know Cdn import rules, but that does not sound right... on many levels. Perhaps the govt. is grasping at straws.

......"Perhaps govt is grasping at straws"......

Precisely what I have thought since the beginning of this investigation. Almost every new media release, of information from this investigation, seems to point new fingers at the latest "miscreant" who just so happens to have deep financial pockets. One would surmise that the govt is trying to haul everyone they can into liability for this mess, especially those who have lots of financial assets!

Think for a moment about just who it is that is trying to involve every possible party they can think of, into the pool of those with money to pay damages......and then look at just WHO is controlling the investigation....and release of official information to the media.......and ask yourself just how thorough, and honest, is the investigation, and the final report really going to be.

Like it or not, those who control this investigation, are "politically minded", as one can readily tell by the ongoing press releases, such as this one!

SRM

Some news accounts claim that there were cars parked or stored on the Nantes siding for a customer in Lac-Mégantic.

The Trains Magazine photo I cited was in the old fashioned paper issue. I don't know if it is on line.

If the importer is liable, could the ultimate purchasers also be liable, like motorists who were going to use the oil as gasoline?

What are the Canadian rules? Is inspecting a locomotive that fire fighters may have touched "covered service"? Not every bit of work performed on a locomotive is under Hours of Service regulations. And, had the engineer run out of time, or just reached the end of his run without even earning overtime?

Graziano's Tariff -- haven't heard that name in years.

JimBoylan wrote:Some news accounts claim that there were cars parked or stored on the Nantes siding for a customer in Lac-Mégantic.

The Trains Magazine photo I cited was in the old fashioned paper issue. I don't know if it is on line.

If the importer is liable, could the ultimate purchasers also be liable, like motorists who were going to use the oil as gasoline?

What are the Canadian rules? Is inspecting a locomotive that fire fighters may have touched "covered service"? Not every bit of work performed on a locomotive is under Hours of Service regulations. And, had the engineer run out of time, or just reached the end of his run without even earning overtime?

Jim, I think I found a similar picture on the TSB's website. They have about 20 or so pix of the on-site investigation, (which you can download in their original format--really big w/lots of detail) including a great shot of the B-end of the idler boxcar. The drawbar and coupler are still there, but I can't tell if the knuckle broke off from the forces or just broke open.

Here's the URL http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inves ... 3D0054.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Links to the pix (on Flickr) are at the bottom.

From the Bangor Daily News:

Bangor Daily News wrote:An Illinois attorney who represents the victims of the Lac-Megantic, Quebec, train disaster and their families said Friday that he will file a lawsuit against Irving Oil Co., the Canadian firm that hired the railroad to ship crude oil to its refinery in New Brunswick.

Peter J. Flowers of Chicago, who represents the estates of 19 victims in wrongful death suits, said the decision to sue Irving was made after Canadian media reported Wednesday that the Lac-Megantic train, owned by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, was hauling a more flammable gasoline-like fuel than the crude oil it was supposed to be carrying.
. . .
The oil came from a U.S. Bakken oilfield and was headed for the Irving refinery. The Canadian Transportation Safety Board said documents showed the cargo was listed in the Packing Group III category, which describes regular crude oil.

But tests showed the oil actually belonged in the Packing Group II category, which has the characteristics of gasoline and is much more explosive, according to a previously published report.

In Canada, the oil’s buyer and importer is responsible for accurately labeling the product, according to Flowers.

Read more at: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/09/13/n ... rain-cars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a quick question.Is the same type of tank car used for Packing Group category II and III ?

Canadian Transportation Dangerous Goods regulations sometimes are different from American Code of Federal Regulations. We may have to check both versions to see if different tank cars are required.
Very interesting legal theory, that the buyer is responsible. But, what if he hasn't yet bought the product when the accident occurs?

Meanwhile, the focus once again shifts back to MMA:

The Globe and Mail wrote:The mystery locomotive fire that touched off the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster was started by a broken piston in the train’s engine, sparking a series of tragic events that led to the explosive derailment in the heart of the Quebec town, according to a preliminary investigation.

Until now, the reason the engine caught fire prior to the derailment had not been known. But the results of a preliminary investigation into the burned locomotive by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway suggest the engine had a broken piston, which caused the fire. The problem caused unburned fuel to seep throughout the engine, resulting in smoke and sparks aboard the locomotive.
. . .
“There is no issue about how the train derailed,” Mr. Burkhardt said. “[But] If you have an engine with a broken piston and it’s shooting unburned fuel oil out of the exhaust stack, and things like that, and heavy sparking and all that, you don’t leave it running.”

In addition to the alleged actions of the MM&A engineer, the decisions made by the train’s dispatchers on how to handle the problem may also come under scrutiny. The lawyer representing the train’s engineer said the smoke from the locomotive was discussed with other officials at MM&A.

Read more at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e14301352/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Just a quick question.Is the same type of tank car used for Packing Group category II and III ?"

DOT-111 tanks are generally approved for Class 3 (flammable liquids), PG I,II, and III. (if you really want to explore this, the 49CFR 172.101 table will indicate approved car types for each identified commodity.)

Crude oil can be categorized in all three PGs, depending on flash point and boiling point.

Keep in mind that the the "111" designation is general class description; different hazmat commodities may require varying design enhancements.

Stating the really, really, really obvious:

Whether the tank cars were adequately designed umpteen years ago, whether placarded accurately or not, who shipped the crude, and who bought the crude, are all irrelevant to the proximate cause of the incident, namely, that the brakes released. The stories now emerging in the press are merely more evidence that the focus now is on finding somebody to blame who has deep pockets. This confirms that the investigation and resolution have now moved firmly into the political phase, forewarning that logic and reason will soon be eliminated from the process. Get your facts now, before they become conveniently adjusted to fit the desired outcome.

PBM

That investigation results will be distorted may be a valid concern, but there's no reason to believe that Canada's TSB, like the US's NTSB, will conduct anything but a thorough and impartial investigation.

Cowford wrote:That investigation results will be distorted may be a valid concern, but there's no reason to believe that Canada's TSB, like the US's NTSB, will conduct anything but a thorough and impartial investigation.

I agree. While I fully anticipate the results will be distorted by the press and by various politicians and others with axes to grind (75% of whom will probably not read the entire report), I think the accident report itself will be impartial. If you don't want to attribute this completely to professionalism (as I do), just consider the fact that a career at something like the TSB is likely to span 40 years. If you started working for the US government 40 years ago, you'd have worked for the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama administrations. No good will come in tilting politically when the "boss" is going to be 180 degrees different in <2 years!

Cowford wrote:That investigation results will be distorted may be a valid concern, but there's no reason to believe that Canada's TSB, like the US's NTSB, will conduct anything but a thorough and impartial investigation.

On 10 March 1989 immediately after take-off en route from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg via Dryden, Ontario, A Fokker Fellowship twin turboprop aircraft crashed immediately after takeoff, killing 25 passengers and crew. The immediate cause was failure to deice the wings.

But there was more to it than that. The Canadian government came in for heavy criticism re its lax safety regulations with the airlines. So much so that the investigation was taken away from the official government sources and placed in the hands of an eminent judge, The Honourable Virgil P. Moshansky. His final report showed plenty of blame to go around.

Regarding Transport Canada, the report had this to say:

Transport Canada:

• did not provide clear guidance for carriers and crews regarding the need for deicing;
• did not enforce the provision of performance data on contaminated runways;
• did not closely monitor Air Ontario for regulatory compliance following the merger and during the initiation of the jet service;
• did not require licensing or effective training of flight dispatchers;
• did not provide clear requirements for the qualification of candidates to management positions, including director of flight operations, chief pilot and company check pilot;
• did not develop a policy for the training and operational priorities of air carrier inspectors;
• delayed the audit of Air Ontario and did not include the F-28 programme in it;
• followed an excessively complex MEL approval process; and
• did not have a clear definition of what constitutes an essential airworthiness item.

More reading on this here: http://theerringhuman.blogspot.com/2012 ... error.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since the Lac Megantic accident the Canadian Govt has come in for heavy criticism, from many quarters, for it's laxity for, in effect, letting the Canadian railroads set, and monitor its adherence to, it's own safety standards. It could be that the government regulatory structure may, itself, have had a more than small responsibility for the occurence of this disaster, just like it did at Dryden.

I am not at all sure that we are going to see a truly HONEST investigation, one that points out ALL factors that contributed to this sad event!

WC

Sandy, please note that Canada's TSB, not Transport Canada is conducting the accident investigation. TSB is an independent agency that was formed after (in part because of?) that plane crash. They don't appear have any apprehensions about criticizing Transport Canada and the transportation industry over any number of issues.

Not sure if this is farther back in the thread or not, but I just discovered the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has an entire webpage devoted to the Lac-Megantic disaster, including a timeline, a map of the area, all relevant public notices stemming from the accident, and biographies of all personnel involved in the investigation.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inves ... 3D0054.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty impressive degree of transparency if you ask me.