Sefton found this.
I am a retired engineer having significant experience with pressure vessels and some background with DoT tank regulations. I offer my thoughts based on limited knowledge and a little thinking.
From what I could learn, the contents of the tank(s) were becoming unstable and pressure was increasing. It was feared that the tank would explode and send shrapnel everywhere. So the decision was made to relieve the pressure with a “controlled burn.” This story raises many questions that must be answered.
The first question is, what was causing the pressure to build? Physically there is no difference between a tank sitting on its wheels on a track and a tank lying on its side on the ground. There is nothing about a tank lying on the ground that would cause pressure to build. Was there a fire around the rail cars? I’ve seen nothing indicating that this was the case, nor is it likely there was a wild land fire in the middle of winter in Ohio. How did they know pressure was building? Were they monitoring a pressure gauge on the tank? If so, they were close enough to put out any fire that might be threatening the tank. Furthermore, transport tanks are equipped with a pressure relief valve that would not allow pressure to build enough to burst them. Note: if the contents of a transport tank are so hazardous that they are unsafe to vent via a relief valve, additional requirements are imposed on tank strength and integrity during accidents.
Because rollovers and derailments are expected, hazardous transport tanks are designed to survive them. They are also designed with rollover protection so that fill connections are protected to remain accessible and functional in the case of these accidents. This would have allowed responders to connect to and empty the tanks into alternates such as over-the-road tanks and then hauled away. Why was this approach rejected?
Finally, these tanks are made of ductile material, typically mild carbon steel. They do not eject shrapnel whey they burst. Rather, they split apart with all material remaining contiguously attached. The tank itself might become airborne, but it would not break up into pieces. Why was the governor of Ohio told the tank would produce shrapnel? Even if the shrapnel scenario were true, how would that be more hazardous than releasing tons of hazardous acid and toxic fumes?
This is material over which DeWine* should be impeached and his adviser(s) should be imprisoned, not to mention the Feds (EPA?? DoT???) who advised DeWine to act so stupidly.
*According to Bannon's information, it was EPA which made the decision. DeWine concurred.
Good luck with accountability, friends.
9 comments:
We had to deal with the sniveling Midget RINO Gov Mike Dewine during lockdowns, He was an totalitarian A-hole and an enthusiastic Mask Nazi until house of representatives neutered him for abusing his constituents. Yes, he is as that stupid and a Bastard as well. A Fatal Combination.
Impeachment is a nice start.
Hope he gets what he deserves.
Greg
Look up The term BLEVE. (BOILING LIQUID EXPANDING VAPOR EXPLOSION)
Jeffrey Clark talks with Bannon about how some young aggressive Prosecutor should call a Grand Jury because all the cockroaches are scurrying for cover. Listen, it makes sense
https://rumble.com/v2a7gqy-episode-2531-the-epa-needed-to-step-in.-earlier-in-ohio.html
BLEVE
Read the bolded blue segment of the post.
Got it?
By the way, how do you explain the heat-source when there was no visible fire?
D29 - As you know I am also a retired engineer who spent most of my career evaluating the safety of pressure vessels, in particular to prevent brittle failures. Nothing in the discussion you provided from Mr. Meloy strikes me as being contrary to my experience and expectations. He asks all the right questions, although he could have noted that rising temperatures would cause the tank materials to become more ductile and even less prone to ejecting shrapnel (i.e., brittle failure).
Regarding DOT tank design, one of my engineers ran a test program for the Air Force to evaluate the effects of pressure vessel failures. A major problem with the test program was an inability to cause the DOT vessels to fail brittlely. They are designed to be extremely tough and could not be forced to fail without the application of external explosive charges. This design concept is called LBB, Leak Before Break (or Burst).
Dad29:
I did read the post including the bolded blue segment of the post. I am not an engineer. I am a Full Time Paramedic and a Volunteer Firefighter. I made the BLEVE comment not to defend anyone just to point out the possibilities. Yes, tank cars are equipped with pressure relief valves however if the structural integrity of the pressure containment vessel is compromised such as fire impinging on the area of the tank above the liquid line a catastrophic failure of the containment vessel can occur before the pressure can be released by the relief valve resulting in a BLEVE. There are many examples of this occurring and videos available. Also some times the best course of action is to "burn off" the contents in a controlled burn rather than try to unload the tank or allow the substance to vent into the atmosphere. These decisions are the responsibility of the Incident Commander.
I enjoy reading you blog and am always in agreement with your posts. Thanks for blogging.
Tim Murphy
NYS EMT-P
That is bullshit Tim. Enroll in a mechanical, structural, or metallurgical engineering program. You are unqualified to comment on the "structural integrity" of anything at this time.
The point is that these ductile materials will not shatter and spew shrapnel from overpressurization. They will leak upon failure, which can be contained more readily than the combustion byproducts from the un-"controlled burn" that was initiated by our civil authorities. If the leaking liquid then ignites, you have the same uncontrolled burn that was willfully ignited by the Big Brains in our government. Based on the facts we know, none of this makes sense.
From the comments on Mr. Meloy's article at American Thinker:
"Chlorinated solvents, like vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene, as well as poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) produce the bi-product dioxin when burned at low temperatures. Dioxin is the most toxic man-made chemical compound known to exist. It is highly carcinogenic and does not occur on its own in nature."
This too, may be bullshit, but I'll admit that I am unqualified to make that call.
Headless Blogger:
I agree that I am not qualified to comment on the structural integrity of anything. As I stated, I am not an engineer. Would it be safe to assume that you are not qualified to comment on Firefighting or the Incident Command System? If you choose, take a look at the video. There are also many other examples available.
https://youtu.be/UM0jtD_OWLU
I'm not looking for an argument or to defend anyone. It appears that the whole incident is a mess and i expect nothing less from our government leaders.
You are correct Tim.
Please send me a link to the Incident Command System plan for this situation. I'm interested in the logic tree that leads to the lighting of a fire to disperse toxic chemicals over thousands of acres in response to a local threat to an evacuated area.
I can't imagine that something like that was done with any foresight or planning.
Post a Comment