From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
      
   >>>My understanding is that the new standards will apply to liquids that have   
   >>>a certain flash point, regardless of the underlying chemistry, which is   
   >>>exactly as it should be. (But I haven't read the prosper rules myself.)   
      
   >>The existing tank car standards were based on a particular flash point, too.   
   >>Again, it's about tank cars are designed for X; don't put Y in them.   
      
   >That's not how it works. The regulations define a packing group based on   
   >flash point, which influences how the materials are to be shipped; but, the   
   >DOT-111 car is allowed to carry flammable liquids of any packing group.   
      
   We've been discussing this for several years on Usenet. Methane, ethane,   
   propane and butane are dissolved in the crude. The decades-old standards   
   DID NOT anticipate crude would be transported with too much dissolved   
   volatile gases.   
      
   The dissolved gases are supposed to be separated out at the wellhead.   
   They aren't, because producers are trying to fill tank cars and move them   
   out quickly, and crude with dissolved gases fills the tank car even though   
   it's a poorer quality product. There's an incentive to leave the dissolved   
   gases in the crude.   
      
   Propane is the particular problem. It separates out from the crude.   
   Pressure increases inside the tank car, which increases the likelihood   
   of rupture. Propane is volatile so a ruptured car is likely to explode.   
      
   The producers are simply lying about what they're loading the tank cars with,   
   and railroads are getting the blame. There's just nothing wrong with the   
   standards.   
      
   http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140305/oil-train-made-riskie   
   -producers-deliberately-leaving-volatile-gases-crude-0   
      
   >>Are tank cars for ethanol not spec'ed to known characteristics of ethanol?   
      
   >The car is spec'ed to carry non-pressurized flammable liquids. The same car   
   >spec is required for crude oil, ethanol, gasoline, and other flammable   
   >liquids. It wasn't necessarily designed with any particular commodity in   
   >mind.   
      
   If the car is being filled, isn't it based on likely expansion of the   
   contents? Crude doesn't expand to any significant degree likely to cause   
   rupture. It's the dissolved gases. If the tank car is being filled with   
   a flammable that's going to expand, you put less in. Right?   
      
   That's not what they're doing.   
      
   It's not like the characteristics of fuels weren't well known   
   decades ago.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)