Oil and Fodder

June 30, 2014 | Last updated on October 1, 2024
3 min read
Angela Stelmakowich, Editor
Angela Stelmakowich, Editor

The one-year anniversary of the deadly derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec is upon us, bringing with it new and planned federal requirements meant to inject greater safety into Canada’s rail system and perhaps afford some healing to those living with the aftermath of a tragedy.

Federal transport minister Lisa Raitt said in late June that new requirements will further strengthen safety in Canada’s transportation system.

Canada’s rail system – particularly as it relates to transportation of dangerous goods – came under fire in the wake of Lac-Mégantic. The derailment of a runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) train carrying crude oil, prompting the contents of several cars to explode, ultimately led to the deaths of 47 people.Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) figures show an increase in rail accidents involving dangerous goods during January to May in 2014 over the same period in 2013, up to 74 from 61.

Transport Canada reports that planned requirements will mean each of the 35 provincially regulated railway and light-rail companies operating on federal track will need to develop and implement a safety management system; and new DOT-111 tank car standards will require thicker steel walls and other reinforcements to reduce spill risk on impact.

Already in effect as of July 15, new demands under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Update of Standards) say consignors of crude oil must properly classify the oil by a test report, lab report or document that explains how the dangerous goods were classified.

“A consignor who allows a carrier to take possession of dangerous goods for transport or who imports dangerous goods into Canada must, during a five-year period that begins on the date that appears on the shipping document, make a proof of classification available to the minister on reasonable notice given by the minister,” the revised regulations state.

Classification of a flammable liquid is based on its flash point and its boiling point.

In January, the TSB and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board issued strong recommendations to improve the safe transportation of crude oil by rail. “If North American railways are to carry more and more of these flammable liquids through our communities, it must be done safely,” TSB chair Wendy Tadros said at the time.

It was recently reported that crude oil shipments are expected to increase to about 510,000 carloads in 2016 compared to 160,000 in 2013.

New federal rules are not the first moves made in the wake of Lac-Mégantic, simply the latest. These have included everything from a new obligation for those transporting or importing crude oil to have an emergency response assistance plan approved by Transport Canada in place by September 20, 2014 to discussions about third-party liability insurance systems to prevent downloading liability costs to taxpayers, suspension of MMA’s operating licence, criminal negligence charges against the defunct railway and three employees, and most recently, a move by the Quebec government to add its name to the list of MMA creditors, seeking $409 million for related expenses to date and those expected in future.

An Ipsos Reid poll done for CTV News in January – a sample of 1,000 Canadians from Ipsos’ Canadian online panel was interviewed online – shows that 54% disagree (17% strongly and 38% somewhat) that they are confident in the safety of transporting hazardous materials by rail in Canada.

As well, 61% say they think a series of rail accidents, including Lac-Mégantic, are symptomatic of a larger safety problem, and 90% want a formal government review of policies related to transporting crude by rail.

It is hoped that the new and planned requirements will produce the enhanced safety (and reassurance) sought. With the increase in crude shipments, it may not take much time to determine if the new rules are sufficient.

If not, communities along rail lines, companies looking to protect their reputations, insurance providers and government coffers should brace for what could be yet another devastating hit.