Subject: Toilets and Retention Tanks (8/31/1992)
[1/26/89] There have been several articles in the trade press, and at least one complaint to Congress concerning the dumping of raw sewage onto the tracks. Although unsightly and gross, it is certainly much less of a problem than living downstream from a dairy farm. A cost benefit study would make it unlikely that any reasonable governmental agency will mandate holding tanks in the immediate future, but you should start planning.
[6/26/89] Kindly Do Not Flush - The trade press has had several articles in the last six months dealing with the dumping of untreated human waste on railroad rights of way. I believe I reported on this subject only 4 months ago. Bill Farmer has sent me the enclosed article, which is largely self-explanatory. I suppose we should steel ourselves for further regulations.
[12/26/89] Kindly Do Not Flush - While I am cleaning up materials which were reported previously, this important topic has generated more press for Amtrak, and has resulted in a trial in Florida, where everything hit the fan. Enclosed is an article from Newsweek with a further explanation. Also enclosed is a letter from Burlington Northern, which is self-explanatory. This problem has come to a head much quicker than I thought it would. In a phone conversation with BN, I am advised they have received assurances that Amtrak will install retention tanks, and that PV's will continue to be allowed on regular Amtrak trains in the interim. I am also advised that BN will handle PVs otherwise on their system if (1) the PV has retention tanks or (2) the PV owner agrees to indemnify the BN.
[7/10/90] Solenoid Valves - A number of car owners have changed over to the use of electrically actuated solenoid valves to flush toilets, doing away with the standard Sloan valve. Unless maintained, the Sloan valve tends to stick open, quickly draining your car of all water. The cheapest solenoid valves are found at your local building supply store who sells lawn sprinklers. These plastic valves operate on 24 volts, and have vacuum breakers, required by the Public Health Service, already installed in some models.
Two of the common brands found are Rainbird and Lawn Genie. I checked with Rainbird, and its engineer advised against using Rainbird valves on railroad cars. The reason is that the Rainbird valve is piston actuated, and works better at higher pressures, well above the 25 psi typically found on railroad cars. The Rainbird engineer recommended the Lawn Genie brand, which utilizes a diaphragm valve, and the Lawn Genie engineer felt that his valves would work in the railroad environment.
[3/11/91] Burlington Northern - Retention Toilets - On November 16, 1990, the Burlington Northern advised Amtrak that it would not operate private cars even on Amtrak unless the cars are equipped with self-contained toilet holding tanks, and the movement request must so indicate. This condition has apparently been brought about as a result of employee and union complaints caused by the discharge of human waste from passing trains. Amtrak has responded that private cars are not to be treated any differently than other Amtrak cars operating on an Amtrak train. Burlington has replied with additional demands including reimbursement for incentive payments which are lost as a result of problems caused by private cars, or its passengers, etc.
One of the Hatch Act amendments changed 45 U.S.C. 546(i) to include a preemption provision to exclude the operation of other federal, state, and local laws. The provision now reads "The provisions of section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) and other federal, state and local laws shall not apply to waste disposal from railroad conveyances operated in intercity rail passenger service." The statute goes on to make this exemption effective through October 15, 1996. Thereafter, cars must be retrofitted, providing Congress comes up with the funding to do so.
My interpretation of the statute is that we are exempt. The BN apparently does not agree and believes that these provisions apply only to Amtrak, and not private car owners. However, this particular section of the statute refers to intercity rail passenger service, which is defined in the Act as all rail passenger service other than commuter service. No mention of Amtrak is made in this section. The reason, of course, is that at the time the statute was originally passed, both the Rio Grande and Southern were continuing to operate intercity passenger service.
There is another legal argument which can be made, and that is that the quid pro quo for the railroads being able to get out of the passenger business was that they would establish, and join Amtrak, and insure that it was put in a position to operate the trains in the same manner as the carriers had done at the time Amtrak came into existence. The penalty for failing to do this was that the carrier had to remain in the passenger business. At the time Amtrak came into existence, of course, private cars were being handled, and there was a tariff in effect for that service. Thus, I would argue that the BN can only be relieved from its obligation to handle private cars, with or without retention toilets, after it has begun operating its own passenger trains again, and then gone through the necessary steps to amend the various tariffs. In any event, Amtrak is attempting to work something out with the BN. The carriers are probably posturing themselves for Amtrak contract negotiations which come up next year.
[5/31/91] Retention Toilets - In my last report, I noted that the Burlington had advised Amtrak that it would not operate private cars on Amtrak unless they were equipped with self- contained toilet holding tanks; and Amtrak had responded that private cars were to be treated no differently than any other Amtrak car. Amtrak now includes the following language in its Special Movements Bureau advance notification to the carriers, and particularly BN:
PV is self-contained (Microphor) toilet equipped. Amtrak agrees that any/all liability arising out of or in conjunction with any loss or damage to the private car or personal injury or death of passengers occurring during or pursuant to transit over BN lines shall be considered as Amtrak equipment under item © and as ticketed passengers under item (b) of sec. 7.2 of the "Amtrak-Burlington Agreement".
This position is apparently being taken by Amtrak on our behalf, and sets forth its position that our cars are to be treated the same as Amtrak cars, for purposes of delay and liability; but perhaps not toilets. Of course, many Amtrak cars are not self-contained. In the meantime, Danny Boehr has written to Bennett Levin, interpreting the provisions of the Hatch Act Amendments, and stating that Amtrak believes this statute applies to private cars as well as Amtrak.
He then goes on to state:
. . . Accordingly, we intend to insist that on and after October 1, 1996, all cars on Amtrak trains have full retention toilet systems, i.e., systems that retain all toilet waste for disposal at servicing end point facilities.
As an interim measure, by October 1, 1993, all private cars operating on Amtrak will be required to have either such a full retention toilet system or a system that deposits only treated clear water on the right-of-way . . . The deadlines will not be waived.
This means that all private cars (and I assume all railroad owned cars traveling on Amtrak trains) must have the equivalent of Microphor toilets in two years, and full retention systems in five years. All of this without regard to what the statute says, without regard to waiting for any reports from the Department of Transportation (or the Public Health Service) and certainly without regard to whether Amtrak can meet these requirements itself, or whether it ever will. In addition, the Congressional material indicates that Amtrak is currently working with nine suppliers, and we don't know what sort of mechanical requirements will be forthcoming for handling sewage, nor do we have the benefit of any engineering evaluation.
Needless to say, Doug Ebert, Bennett Levin, and I have all written to Danny Boehr about this perceived problem, and the mandated solution. We will keep you advised.
[12/27/91] Retention Toilets - This subject was reported in my May 31, 1991 report, and was also the subject of four out of five of the seminars at Ashland. In particular, I have not heard further from Danny Boehr with respect to the imposition of a treatment system such as Microphor by October 1, 1993 and a full retention system by October 1, 1996. In the meantime, we do know that Amtrak is testing several systems on its cars including a pressure system on Auto-train, a vacuum system on the Cardinal, Desert Wind, and Empire Builder, and a recirculation system on the Broadway. According to a communication to employees of Amtrak, one of these systems will be picked in 1992. This is also the gist of a news report carried by the Associated Press in papers in Kansas City and Jacksonville in November of this year. Whatever system is used, Amtrak is trying to find one which can retain sewage for at least 72 hours, so that an occupied car can reach its destination before dumping or attention. Amtrak intends to retrofit 544 cars at a cost of $85 million (assuming, I suppose, that Congress comes up with the money) and further states that 492 cars already have a retention system, leaving 348 unequipped cars (Heritage fleet) to be retired. The four companies which Amtrak is dealing with, and the names of their representatives who spoke to us in Ashland are given below. Do not hesitate to contact these companies for further information on their products, although you may find the seminar tapes to be a more valuable starting point. The names and addresses are:
Mr. Phillip Saigh Mr. Phillip Nafziger
ElectroCom Gard Envirovac, Inc.
7449 North Natchez Avenue 1260 Turrett Drive
Niles, Illinois 65490 Rockford, Illinois 61111
Mr. Tom Moriarity Mr. William I. Mercer
Microphor Inc Monogram Sanitation
452 E. Hill Road P.O. Box 9057
Willits, California 95490 Compton, California 90224-9057
My current understanding is that the discharge point is a 4" Andrews quick-disconnect coupling, with one such coupling on each side of the car. I am not clear on the exact location along the length of the car, if there is any such requirement yet.
[12/27/91] Burlington Northern Retention Toilet - I have been given a bulletin or policy statement by the BN dated July 31, 1991 relating to the operation of excursion trains and special equipment moves on that railroad. The requirements are a $15 million liability policy with BN named as an additional insured, or other requirements satisfactory to BN. The use or possession of alcohol is prohibited. The equipment must have roller bearings and tight-lock couplers. All toilets must be total retention and/or Microphor; and direct discharge toilets will not be allowed on the property, unless the toilets are locked or capped. Passenger cars will be moved in freight trains under the tariff issued by BN and one rider may accompany the car, providing he has executed a release in favor of BN. The present contact is the Vice President of Transportation at Overland Park.
[8/31/92] Retention Toilets - Please refer to my prior reports of May 31, 1991 and December 27, 1991. We will soon be officially advised by Amtrak that private car owners need not do anything more with respect to sewage treatment systems than is required of Amtrak. Therefore, there will not be an imposition of a treatment system in 1993. However, there will be the imposition of a full retention system by October 1, 1996, for all sewage, providing such is required of Amtrak at that time. Gray water has not yet been addressed.
Amtrak is currently testing the four systems discussed by our speakers and reported in my report of December 27, 1991 on various of their cars.
I would suggest if you have not already done so, that you order the Ashland Seminar tapes which included three hours of materials on these four systems, so that you can decide yourself which is best suited for your car. If you have thrown away the order form, kindly call Larry Haines (see masthead of Private Varnish), and he can supply you with another copy.
I reported that my current understanding of the discharge point is a 4" Andrews quick-disconnect coupling, with one such coupling on each side of the car. I am now advised that this coupling should be located on both sides, within 15' from the truck center. I do not know which truck, nor do I know how close to 15' you have to be. Amtrak is currently testing all four systems, and probably has not made a decision, as of this writing. I do know that Microphor has been awarded a contract for 153 toilet systems to be used on Amfleet II cars. There is also an ad in the August issue of Progressive Railroading by Envirovac showing their vacuum sewage collection system. Considerably more information is contained in the Ashland tapes, mentioned above.
Paul L. DeVerter II
コメント