"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   > dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >> "Adam H. Kerman"  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.   
      
   >   
   >> It's not like there haven't been massive explosions resulting from ethanol,   
   >> see   
   >> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/ohio-train-explosion-caught-tape-16758671   
   >> for a good video Tells you something about the relative power of Big Oil   
   >> compared to the Ag industry, I guess...   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Dan   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)