Evidence of meeting #131 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safety.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you for appearing here today to provide testimony on removing the transportation of flammable liquids from your watchlist.
It's already been referenced in light of the three recent derailments in as many weeks. I think the first was on January 24, the next one was on February 4 and now February 14. We've been seeing these derailments happen. Of course, there was the very tragic accident in Field, B.C. where three lives were lost.
I think it's very timely that we're having this study now. I think some people would be asking themselves if it's a good idea to remove this issue from the watchlist, given that there is more oil by rail. Perhaps we need to look at the bigger issue of whether or not we need to be getting oil off rail and into a pipeline. I know that was referenced as well.
I'm just wondering if you could tell me, Ms. Fox, if are you familiar with the August 2015 report by the Fraser Institute comparing the safety records of pipelines and rail.
11:15 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
I'm somewhat familiar, yes. I've seen the report.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Okay, you're somewhat familiar. Are their conclusions accurate in your opinion?
11:15 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
We haven't assessed the report in those kinds of critical terms. As far as we know, the information that they used from TSB data sources was accurate. We have no reason to question that. I think the question of rail versus pipeline safety when it comes to transporting dangerous goods is a lot more complex and challenging to answer than may appear on the surface.
It really requires an apples-to-apples comparison. You have to aggregate volume data from various sources. You need a common denominator to compare them on an apples-to-apples basis. That's very difficult.
From our perspective, the risks in pipelines are very different. They relate to, for example, fracturing or fatigue cracks in the pipeline, to interactions with the environment and sometimes to third party intervention, versus rail, where you have hundreds of tonnes of train operating on steel rails in a variety of climatic conditions.
The risks are very different. At the end of the day, our job is to identify where there are deficiencies and where more needs to be done. We don't make those kinds of comparisons as to which mode is safer than the other. We believe that, whatever mode is used, it needs to be done as safely as can be.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
In the last Parliament, I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. I don't question that rail is a safe way of transporting oil; I just believe that pipelines are a bit safer. I think it behooves all of us to try to move this product across our country using the safest mode possible.
One of the main findings of this report was that rail was found to be over 4.5 times more likely to experience an occurrence when compared to pipelines.
I'm wondering if you've noticed a shift in the numbers to indicate that this ratio is no longer accurate.
11:15 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
I can't comment on the specific ratio. What I can tell you from our preliminary 2018 statistics, when we look at the number of occurrences in the rail mode, is that there were 1,468 occurrences reported to the TSB in 2018, which included 1,173 rail accidents. That's all types of accidents: derailments, collisions and so on.
When we look at pipelines, we had a total of 110 occurrences reported to us, including one accident. So there is a definite difference in terms of the number of occurrences that are reported to us, recognizing that we only do federally regulated pipelines. Secondly, we have no outstanding pipeline recommendation. Pipelines are not on our watchlist, but there are a number of anecdotal things that can be used to suggest, or to indicate, relative issues between the modes.
The issue that I think we also have to keep in mind is that if there is a pipeline spill—and depending on whether it is carrying crude oil or gas—the consequences can be quite significant in terms of the amount spilled compared to the amount carried in a unit train of, say, crude oil. I use the example of the October 2018 occurrence that we're investigating north of Prince George, which involved the rupture and fire of a natural gas pipeline.
If you talk frequency, there are more rail occurrences reported than pipeline, but then you also have to look at the consequences in terms of how much is spilled, what is spilled and where it spilled.
February 21st, 2019 / 11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I represent a riding in Mississauga and we're often reminded of the 1979 derailment, which our mayor was quite aptly named "Hurricane Hazel" for. In 2015 when we were running, there was an incident. I wouldn't call it a derailment but a train did hop off the rails and a minor cleanup was required. In my riding we are quite aware of the safety concerns of rail and transporting chemicals and crude oil. Since 2015 I've gone door knocking and people have a marked difference in their emotions to rail. They feel pretty safe, relative to when I was first running. I think one of the reasons is that we accelerated the phase-out of the CPC-1232 railcars and the DOT-111s.
Could you speak to that and how that's made the entire safety system safer?
11:20 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Again, when we talk about the transportation of crude oil, specifically, what's been phased out much earlier than was originally planned are the CPC-1232 unjacketed cars. The CPC-1232 jacketed cars are still in service and will be allowed to remain in service until as late as 2025. However, we are seeing a much greater distribution of reducing use of CPC-1232 cars and increasing usage of the newly developed TC 117 standard following the Lac-Mégantic accident. We'll have an opportunity in this investigation into what happened in St. Lazare this past weekend to look at the performance of those cars, compared to CPC-1232 jacketed cars that are still allowed.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
In terms of the GTA, is it the unjacketed cars that are frequently the ones passing through?
11:20 a.m.
Board Member, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
You can't say that those types of cars are in any particular area. It's really the shipper that determines what car is used to load a product, so we would have to go have a look at who is shipping what and where to be able to answer that question. I don't have the information.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Okay.
I'd like to give the remainder of my time to Mr. Graham.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Fox, the thing that surprised me in your first responses to Mr. Aubin is that we have to wait for more crashes to happen to have more data. Are freight cars crash-tested before they're put into service?
11:20 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
They are crash-tested, but at a lower speed. Maybe Mr. Jang can provide the specific speed. When you have higher speeds, obviously there is a likelihood of greater damage. What we look at for each of the investigations is the relative performance. How many cars were involved? What speeds were they travelling at? What level of damage was incurred? How did these perform?
We can't say that the 117 cars will never be damaged, or that there's no risk. It depends on the speed and it depends on the crash dynamics at which the derailment happens and where it happens. All we can do is compare the relative performance. I can assure you that with the recent ministerial direction, at least the unjacketed 1232 cars have been removed from transporting crude oil about six months earlier, and petroleum distillates. They are not going to be used for the transportation of crude oil anymore.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
In my experience, ethanol trains have a boxcar at each end to buffer them. Do you see any safety difference with buffer cars or spacers, in terms of outcomes?
11:25 a.m.
Kirby Jang Director, Rail and Pipeline Investigations, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
In terms of previous investigations, we have looked at the marshalling of different loaded tank cars and positioning within the train. Any separation between the more dangerous cars is a good thing.
You're probably aware that we have an active recommendation looking at the factors and the severity of derailments involving dangerous goods. Within that analysis, we're asking the railway industry and Transport to look at the risk profiles of various trains to determine whether there should be adjustments to the rules respecting the key trains and key routes. That's a very important aspect. Any train carrying more than 20 loaded cars is defined as a key train. Distribution within the train is quite important.
You bring up a very good factor, in terms of where the buffer cars are located.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the witnesses for being here this morning.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada's watchlist contains the main safety issues presented by various modes of transportation that must be remedied. Can you tell us what factors the TSB takes into consideration when deciding that a safety issue must not only lead to recommendations, but must also be added to its watchlist?
11:25 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Every other year, the TSB considers a number of factors. We look at accident and incident statistics to identify patterns. We review the recommendations that have not been implemented, as well as the TSB's concerns. We also consult our staff about their recommendations on what should be added to or kept on the list, or what issues should be removed from it. We also monitor other issues that are not on the list. When we add something to the list, however, it is because we feel that the risk is sufficiently high, that the addition is appropriate and that the corrective actions we called for have not yet been taken.
When it comes to the transportation of flammable liquids, we have two requirements: risk analysis and risk management by railway companies, and the accelerated removal of the least crash-resistant tank cars. Once industry and Transport Canada met those requirements, we removed that issue from the watchlist. A simple activity increase does not in itself justify us keeping an issue on the list. If we believe that the risk is sufficiently managed, we can remove it from the list. However, we continue to monitor it, especially in the case of oil transportation by rail, which is on the rise.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
Transportation of flammable liquids by rail is a particularly significant concern, especially in Quebec, given the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Transportation of flammable liquids was added to the TSB's watchlist after that event. As that issue has since been removed from the watchlist, it is fair to say that Transport Canada is working to improve the safety of transportation of flammable liquids by rail. Can you elaborate on the steps Transport Canada has taken in relation to that concern?
11:25 a.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
I can elaborate, but I think that you will also hear from Transport Canada representatives later, and they will probably be in a better position to give you the details you want.
However, I can tell you that a change was made to the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015. Operating certificates for railway companies were introduced, and the number and extent of checks or inspections of railway companies carried out by Transport Canada was increased. Fines have also been introduced for companies that don't comply with the railway safety act or regulations. Furthermore, the removal of the least crash-resistant cars was ordered, as was the implementation of emergency response plans in case of derailment.
All those measures have reduced the risk, but they have not completely eliminated it. Action is yet to be taken in response to three of the five recommendations we issued in the aftermath of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, and two other recommendations we issued after the derailments in northern Ontario in 2015. We will continue to monitor this file until all our recommendations have been implemented in a fully satisfactory manner.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
It's good that Transport Canada is a key player in this file, but what about railway companies?
What measures have the companies implemented to make rail transportation safer?
