Coal Age Magazine - For nearly 100 years, Coal Age has been the magazine that readers can trust for guidance and insight on this important industry.
Issue link: https://coal.epubxp.com/i/105148
transport tips Jousting with Windmills: PRB Coal Shippers' Dust Control Battle BY DAVE GAMBREL " the adjoining field weld, then broke upward through the ball of the rail." It also said, "FRA has recommended prosecution of BNSF for civil penalties for failure to comply with Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) procedures: not noting required information on the web of the rail as required." Nothing was said about unstable ballast. The FRA investigated the UP derailment, but evidently did not consider the BNSF derailment significant enough to investigate. Apparently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) did not consider either derailment important enough to investigate. At any rate no official record may be found of the BNSF derailment, or of the resolution of related civil penalties. Eventually, a battle began that was not unlike Don Quixote's battle with the windmills. Whether it was intended as a diversion or not, BNSF proceeded in a way that forced STB to focus on BNSF's basic right to amend its own tariff, and not at the actual cause of the derailments. Even if the STB could see through the possible tactic of diversion, the case before them was a railroad tariff amendment. STB had no intention of being overturned on appeal, and they knew the best way to get a verdict overturned on appeal was for them to decide an issue that was not before the STB. It was never very likely that the STB would toss out the dust control amendment entirely, but the case has forced STB to take a hard look at the consequences of their decision, not the least of which would be a serious depletion of much-needed water from a land already low on water resources. Jousting with the Windmills Two years ago, BNSF issued its original coal dust tariff amendment (Dust 1), and AECC filed a complaint asking the STB to find the amendment unreasonable. Many other coal shippers and shipper organizations joined in the proceeding. Thus began the "jousting with windmills" phase. Thousands of pages of blacked-out testimony were produced by both sides, and continue to be produced today. The level of secrecy is so great that even Wikileaks could not pierce the veil. Really, guys? This is coal dust, not weapons grade plutonium. The STB found Dust 1 to be unreasonable for two reasons: (1) BNSF's emissions standards were unreasonable, and (2) concerns about BNSF's methods for monitoring dust emissions. Thus, the Dust 1 amendment was pronounced unenforceable. Because the STB found the tariff unreasonable on these grounds, it did not have to address other grounds raised by shipper interests to invalidate the tariff. Shipper evidence refutes BNSF's claim that the 2005 Joint Line derailments were caused by coal dust. It shows the biggest sources of fugitive coal are the impacts and vibrations produced by operating and maintenance practices of the railroads, and not from the airborne movement of coal dust. This may seem surprising after all of the railroad rhetoric on coal dust. The STB strongly suggested the railroads and the shippers work together to find a solution both groups could accept. However, the railroads generally refused to meet with shippers to discuss the major issues. BNSF's Super Trials were oriented entirely toward implementing the spraying requirement it has been trying to force on The STB has also told shippers what to do if they are threatened with any such penalty or sanction without having been given 60-days' notice, or what to do if they have been given 60-days' notice. This seems to leave BNSF helpless to enforce its dust amendment if shippers refuse to spray, but it clearly puts the onus on shippers to inform the STB if BNSF uses strong-arm tactics to compensate for the lack of enforceability in the dust control amendment. 20 www.coalage.com " "In the midst of this their conversation they discovered thirty or forty wind-mills all together on the plain, which the knight no sooner perceived than he said to his squire, 'chance has conducted our affairs even better than we could even wish or hope for: look there, friend Sancho, and behold thirty or forty giants with whom I intend to engage in battle, and put every soul of them to death.'"—Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes, Chapter VIII. In May 2005, two derailments occurred on the PRB Joint Line only a day apart. One involved a BNSF train; the other involved a UP train in which 11 of 130 cars were derailed. Very soon afterward BNSF began insisting fugitive coal dust had caused destabilization of their ballast, and was responsible for both derailments. But was unstable ballast really to blame? Was there any evidence to support the claim of unstable ballast? Had shippers been asked to confirm BNSF assessment of the derailments by on-site reviews of the accidents? Curiously, BNSF acted in a secretive manner immediately and for years after the derailment, not as one would expect from a railroad seeking the cooperation of a major shipping industry. One shipper reported that when they requested a site review, they were told that would be trespassing. Years after the event some shipper representatives were allowed to visit the sites under escort from BNSF, but only for a very limited period of time. The veil of secrecy persists. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in its report on the UP derailment said, "The probable cause of the accident was a broken rail: a bolt hole crack in the outermost bolt hole that ran 11 inches to January 2013