Transport Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Gerard McDonald]

I think the biggest concern is getting the parties to work together on potential solutions. As you correctly point out, while proximity issues were identified as something—even under the Railway Safety Act review—that we should look at, we just don't have the legislative construct to be able to do that. So we have to rely on the railways and organizations like the FCM to try to work together to figure out the best way to do this.

Obviously the railways have been around for a long time, and usually municipalities grow up around existing railway lines. It's not an easy prospect to say, “Well, now, we have a municipality, let's move the railway out of here, because there's a dangerous good on the line.” It's not an easy solution, but I think it's one of mutual cooperation, quite frankly, that we have to have that communication amongst the parties to be able to—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It is encouraging to see at least that the FCM and different jurisdictions are beginning to address this.

Mr. Bourdon.

[Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

Actually it was a recommendation in Stronger Ties. It was recommendation 34, to try to do something about it, but as Mr. McDonald pointed out, we did not have the jurisdiction—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Right.

[Luc Bourdon]

—to force municipalities to advise the railway. But it was recognized by the panel.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

One of the groups that I've worked with a bit over the last year or so is the chemistry industry, and I notice in the report again from the Library of Parliament that they refer to the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada having the TransCAER program. This is part of their Responsible Care program, and as this group outlined their procedures to me, it seemed to me like a pretty responsible way to address these kinds of issues. I'm wondering if this could be used perhaps as a template for other groups to try to replicate this program. Maybe you could respond on the effectiveness of their TransCAER program.

[Gerard McDonald]

We see the TransCAER program as an excellent model to follow, and actually it was with this in mind that we developed our protective direction on information sharing.

While we have some limited ability to regulate how information is shared among municipalities and railways, we feel the parties themselves have a responsibility to educate each other as well, and any program that advances that is very much supported by us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Sullivan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to all of you for being here.

I note that .002% of 30 million is 600 serious incidents per year. That seems like a big number. It's not 600 railcars; it's actually 600 incidents, right?

[Gerard McDonald]

It would be 600 incidents; I would not necessarily characterize all of them as serious incidents.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

But that's what your document says.

[Gerard McDonald]

Okay.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Following up on what Mr. Albrecht said, in my riding there are tens of thousands of crude oil cars going by every week, 12 feet from people's windows. Last year the railroads actually moved their tracks closer to those windows, by 12 feet, and there is nothing anybody can do about it, right? It's their choice. They expropriated the land some time ago.

With respect to the crude oil shipments, ERAPs are not available for crude oil. Is there an ERAP for the diluent that's in crude oil?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

No, not currently.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

So it's not really crude oil; it's crude oil with something that burns at a very low temperature.

Why is there no ERAP for crude oil with diluents?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

When it was determined, after the Mississauga derailment, that an emergency response assistance plan should be put in place, one of the criteria we identified as a policy decision was ensuring that companies had the expertise and tools when first responders were not equipped to deal with the product interaction or the product consequences of an incident. These were determined to be the ERAPable products. Or the product was determined to require an ERAP because of the type of reaction or the tool or equipment needed.

The perfect example is radioactive material. If there is an incident, then you need proper equipment. That is why it was determined that these types of products needed an ERAP, and the determination was that petroleum crude was not a product that needed an ERAP.

Now we are looking at the new product. There is a working group in place right now to look at whether the requirement should be a part of our regulations.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

With regard to the DOT-111A tank cars, I think I heard you say that they were safe. Why is it that the Transportation Safety Board says they're not? Is there a fight going on between Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

The standard for the DOT-111 was developed with manufacturers, producers, regulators, end groups, and trust groups. They determined that the DOT-111 was appropriate to transport certain types of dangerous goods like petroleum crude. That was the risk-based assessment that was made.

I believe that some of these standards are applied in normal conditions of transport, so they were identified as being appropriate to transport petroleum crude.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

To go back to my question, the Transportation Safety Board says they're not safe and has said on several occasions that they are not appropriate. In fact, we're reacting because you're acting to put shields and other devices on them to make them more compliant with the newer cars. Why are we still running DOT-111As without these shields?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

I believe that's part of how the business works. These tanker cars have an extensive life. They run for 40 to 50 years. They were built in the States, mostly. They were not built in Canada. Quite recently, there was a manufacturing facility that started to build the new tanker car to the new standards, but it hadn't been built in Canada.

The fact is that we have accepted the recommendation of the TSB, and we've been working for the past three or four years in implementing the new requirements for all DOT-111 tanker cars.

We believed that to a certain point it was safe. We're always looking at improving safety. If we can add requirements to improve safety, that's what we do. We're doing it right now.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

The residents in my riding who have tens of thousands of them going by every day, 10 feet from their bedroom windows, don't believe that a train like that, with what the Transportation Safety Board says are unsafe cars travelling at 50 miles an hour, is a very secure thing.

Is there a way to meet in the middle and say reduce the speed of these things down to 10, so that if there is an accident, we're not going to have another Lac-Mégantic?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

I understand that there are some speed requirements, depending on the proximity of some municipalities and the density, but I think Luc is probably more aware of those regulations.

[Luc Bourdon]

We're going back to the early eighties. Those were called following the Mississauga accident. They called it the gateway concept. I would have to go back, but if I remember correctly, in municipalities with a population of between 10,000 and 50,000, as long as the train gets an inspection before it gets into that area, the train can go by at a track speed between 50 and 100. That is if a train has been inspected, and when I say inspected, that's either mechanically, through scanners, or by a certified car man. The train could go through at 35 miles an hour.

In an area of over 100,000 population, the train had to be inspected no more than 20 miles before it got into that area, and then the train would have to be inspected every 20 miles, either mechanically or through a certified car man. Then you'd be allowed to go 35 miles an hour. If not, if you wanted to avoid being inspected, you had to go at 15 through that gateway.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

They're not being inspected?

[Luc Bourdon]

No, no. CN has the largest system of wayside detection in North America.