Transport Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I am calling to order meeting number 131 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are receiving a briefing on the transportation of flammable liquids by rail.

The witnesses we have here from 11 until 12 this morning are from the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. We have with us the Chair, Kathleen Fox.

Welcome again, Ms. Fox. It's nice to see you.

Also with us are Faye Ackermans, Board Member.

We also have Kirby Jang, Director, Rail and Pipeline Investigations; and, Jean Laporte, Chief Operating Officer.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for coming back.

Ms. Fox.

[Kathleen Fox, Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board]

Madam Chair and honourable members, thank you for inviting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to appear before you today so that we can answer your questions relating to the removal of the transportation of flammable liquids by rail from the most recent update to our watchlist.

First issued in 2010, the TSB's watchlist identifies the key safety issues that need to be addressed to make Canada's transportation system even safer. Each of the seven issues on the current edition is supported by a combination of investigation reports, board safety concerns and board recommendations.

Over the years, the watchlist has served as both a call to action and a blueprint for change—a regular reminder to industry, to regulators, and to the public that the problems we highlight are complex, requiring coordinated action from multiple stakeholders in order to reduce the safety risks involved.

And that is exactly what has happened. As Canada's transportation network has evolved, so too has the watchlist: every two years, we put issues on it, call for change, and, when enough action has been taken that the risks have been sufficiently reduced, the issues are removed.

As for the transportation of flammable liquids by rail, it was first added to the watchlist in 2014 in the wake of the terrible tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, and it was supported by a number of board recommendations. In 2016, we kept the issue on the watchlist. We were also explicit about the type of action we wanted to see—specifically, two things.

First, we called on railway companies to conduct thorough route planning and analysis and to perform risk assessments to ensure that risk control measures are effective. Second, we wanted more robust tank cars used when large quantities of flammable liquids are being transported by rail, in order to reduce the likelihood or consequences of a dangerous goods release following derailments.

Since then, Transport Canada and the industry have taken a number of positive steps. Notably, railway companies are conducting more route planning and risk assessments and have increased targeted track inspections when transporting large quantities of flammable liquids.

New standards were established for the construction of rail tank cars, and the replacement of the DOT-111 legacy cars—as in what occurred in Lac-Mégantic—was initiated. Then, in August 2018, the Minister of Transport ordered an accelerated timeline for removing the least crash-resistant rail tank cars. Specifically, as of November 2018, in addition to the earlier removal of the legacy DOT-111 cars, unjacketed CPC-1232s would no longer be used to carry crude oil and, as of January 1 of this year, they would not be transporting condensate either.

Given that kind of action, we removed the issue from the watchlist. However, that does not mean that all the risks have been eliminated or that the TSB has stopped watching.

On the contrary, we are still closely monitoring the transportation of flammable liquids by rail through our review of occurrence statistics, via our ongoing investigations and via the annual reassessment of our outstanding recommendations. To assist the committee, we are pleased to table today an extract from our most recent rail occurrence statistics showing accidents and incidents involving dangerous goods, including crude oil, from 2013 to 2018.

We are now prepared to answer your questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fox. We'll go on to our questioners.

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In light of the fact that this motion was brought forward by Mr. Aubin, I am going to trade spots and allow him to have the first line of questioning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think we have the best committee ever, right? Everybody gets along so well. Look at that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

We aren't finished yet. Just wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Block.

I thank all the members of this committee for agreeing to hold this study.

We are looking into this issue because I feel that Canadians, who—like myself—are not experts on railway safety and are seeing the exponential growth of rail transportation, are generally worried about the increase in the number of incidents and need to be reassured, if that is possible.

Ms. Fox, you have already said that, if the risks increased, nothing was preventing the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, or TSB, from putting the issue back on the watchlist. What criteria would you use to make that decision? Instead of always reacting after an accident, would it to not be possible to proactively implement measures that help avoid those accidents?

[Kathleen Fox]

When we put an issue on the watchlist, it is because we have determined that a risk has not been sufficiently reduced. We ask the government, the regulatory organization or the industrial sector in question to take steps that would help further reduce those risks. We consider the statistics we have on incidents and accidents, as well as the recommendations that have not yet been implemented.

In the case of transportation of flammable liquids, we have noted that the actions we requested were taken, and that is why we removed that issue from the watchlist. However, if we note that risk management is declining and that the number of accidents is increasing significantly, we will consider the possibility of putting that issue back on the list.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You are talking about mitigation measures, which I understand. May I conclude from this that, if an issue is on the watchlist, it is because it poses an immediate danger requiring swift action, but if that issue is removed from the list, it is because the risk is considered to be controlled?

[Kathleen Fox]

The determining factor here is not that the risk is immediate, but rather that it is ongoing and persistent. The issues we have kept on the watchlist are there because the actions we think would better mitigate the risk have not yet been taken.

Concerning the transportation of flammable liquids, we realize that the risk involved in the transportation of dangerous goods by any mode of transportation is ongoing. In this case, the actions we wanted to see in terms of analysis, risk management and use of more crash-resistant tank cars have been taken. So we have removed that issue from the list.

However, we continue to monitor the statistics and conduct our investigations when necessary. No action has yet been taken in response to three of the five recommendations we issued in relation to the Lac-Mégantic incident, or in response to two other recommendations we proposed after other derailments in 2015. So it is clear that we have not stopped monitoring that safety issue.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

The transportation of goods by rail is increasingly prevalent. In your opening remarks, you talked about different car models. The issue of the DOT-111 models has not yet been completely resolved, but we are getting there, and the issue is behind us. As for the armoured CPC-1232 models that were supposed to be one of the alternatives to the DOT-111 models, recent derailments showed that a number of those cars were not crash-resistant. Thank goodness they were not transporting oil, but they could be used for that.

Does the TSB have reliability data for new types of cars, like the TC-117, which are supposed to be risk-free? In light of the latest derailments, have those new cars been taken into consideration? Have you examined their resistance and how they behave when impact or derailment occurs?

[Kathleen Fox]

Before I yield the floor to my colleague, who could talk to you a bit about statistics, I just wanted to tell you that, when a derailment involving dangerous goods like crude oil takes place, we always look at the performance of the cars, which we compare to cars used in other accidents.

I will now ask Ms. Ackermans to explain what we have noted about changes in the distribution of tank cars over the last while.

[Faye Ackermans, Board Member, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board]

We haven't tabled this, but we certainly could. When Lac-Mégantic happened, 80% of the tank cars in service for crude oil were DOT-111 or the CPC-1232 unjacketed, which we have called the least crash-resistant or the less robust tank cars. As of today, virtually all of those have been removed from service in North America, and now 80% of the cars are of a much higher quality. We are still looking at, and will continue to look at, when an accident happens, what happens to the cars involved.

In the most recent accident, only six or seven—we're not quite sure yet of the number—cars out of 37 that derailed were damaged. In Lac-Mégantic about 65 cars derailed and 63 were damaged in the accident. There's clearly a difference in the containment capability, but it will take more accidents for us to be able to have good numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin, your time is up.

We're on to Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm looking at your statistics sheets here, and they show quite a number of occurrences in 2013 and 2014. There seems to have been a spike there. Would the bad weather conditions over that winter have played a factor in the ability of trains to stay on the tracks? Do we know anything about why we had that spike in occurrences?

[Kathleen Fox]

I would have to go back and do a lot of analysis to determine that, but what we know is that in 2013 and 2014, the transportation of crude oil by rail was increasing significantly. During those years we had the Lac-Mégantic accident, in 2013.

Since then, and especially since 2015, there have been a number of actions taken by the industry and by the regulator to reduce the risk of a derailment or the consequences of a derailment. We also saw a drop in activity during a couple of years. I don't think you can make a direct cause and effect, especially since Lac-Mégantic happened in the summer, but there's no doubt that winter operations are much harder in terms of rail activities than are those in summer, because of the extreme cold conditions.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There would seem to have been—and certainly this is what we have seen and heard about—an increase in the shipment of oil by rail simply because everybody's waiting for pipelines to be built, not least those who are on this side of the House.

The longer trains, heavier trains.... I'm not sure if the new cars in fact have more capacity per car than do some of the ones that have been taken out of service, but there does seem to be a perfect storm developing. When you add abnormally cold conditions that can spike, particularly at certain times of the year, it would seem that we're dealing with an elevated risk. I'm wondering if, in terms of the service characteristics, the way trains are put together, the length, etc., you're convinced that the railways are making those adjustments appropriately.

[Kathleen Fox]

I'll ask Ms. Ackermans to respond.

[Faye Ackermans]

I took at look, in the last few days, at how long some of these unit oil trains are. Typically, when we have an accident, they seem to be about 100 cars long, according to the data we have. In fact, the oil trains don't seem to be abnormally long compared to some of the other trains that the railroads put together.

With respect to capacity, the new cars have less capacity than the old ones because there's extra steel and extra insulation, so they actually hold a little bit less oil in each tank car.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

We know, of course, that it was oil from the Bakken oil fields that was involved in the Lac-Mégantic incident and that, as we learned just from the media reports, it is a much more flammable product than are many of the others. Do you know something about the mix that's being transported by rail? Are there still very high levels of the kind of oil that we had present in Lac-Mégantic being shipped, or are we dealing more now with diluted bitumen and some of those other less flammable products?

[Kathleen Fox]

I don't know if we have the statistics in terms of the distribution of the type of oil. We certainly look at that during an investigation, and that will be part of the investigation into the most recent—last weekend's—accident in St. Lazare, Manitoba. What we can say is that since the last two major derailments in northern Ontario in 2015—if you look at the statistics—until last weekend, we had not had any significant derailment involving crude oil trains. We'll look at that in the context of the ongoing investigation for St. Lazare.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Now, we also had that incident in the Rockies near Field, B.C. It was just last week or the week before, very, very recently. Of course, anybody who remembers Lac-Mégantic could see some similarities. A train that was parked all of a sudden started to roll. The minister came out with a ministerial order very quickly.

Does that incident concern you? Do you think that the remedies that the minister has required to be put in place now until further notice will be adequate? Do we need even further investigation of the safety equipment present on trains?

[Kathleen Fox]

With respect to the investigation into the accident in Field, British Columbia, that accident is currently under investigation. The circumstances were different in Lac-Mégantic; it was an unattended train that was improperly secured that ran away. In this particular accident, there were crew aboard the train, and it would be premature for us to determine—we haven't determined yet, we're doing the investigation—all the factors that were at play.

I think any action that the minister takes to reduce the risk of a loss of control is good. Whether it's adequate remains to be seen once we have further information about what caused that particular accident.