Government Memos Stated “No Major Safety Concerns” in Transporting Crude by Rail

Internal memos (attached below) attained by Greenpeace under Access to Information legislation show that the federal government was focusing on the economic benefits of rail transport for crude oil while downplaying the safety hazards involved.

Three memos dated between May 28, 2012 and January 30, 2013, were addressed to Ed Fast, Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. They all outline the current state of oil transport via rail and possible ways to increase its use in the future, such as shipping to “niche markets” without pipeline access and returning diluent to its source once it has been removed from bitumen.

Each report comes to an identical conclusion:

“TC [Transport Canada] has identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail capacity in Canada, nor with the safety of tank cars that are designed, maintained, qualified and used according to Canadian and US standards and regulations. Indeed, Canada and the US work collaboratively to ensure the harmonization of rail safety requirements. The transportation of oil by rail does not trigger the need for a federal environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), however, proposals to construct new infrastructure to support the activity may be required to determine CEAA’s applicability.”

The fourth memo from this year proposes rail shipments as a way to reduce the price discount on Alberta’s oil industry. “NRCan is currently meeting with Transport Canada to mutually understand how rail can be part of a solution to current market access challenges.”

It makes no mention of safety concerns and only considers the impact of increased capacity on terminals.

Reports of safety concerns related to train cars that transport bitumen go as far back as 1994. The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) website states a number of defects in the DOT 111 series tankers that were involved in the recent Lac-Mégantic disaster.

“The susceptibility of 111A tank cars to release product at derailment and impact is well documented,” it says. “The transport of a variety of the most hazardous products in such cars continues.”

In 2012 the TSB highlighted safety concerns following a spill of 200,000 litres of gasoline near Saint-Henri-de-Lévis, Quebec.

“The damage sustained by the Class 111A tank cars involved in this occurrence and the risks posed by the subsequent product release are typical of that identified in previous TSB investigations. In this occurrence, there was a significant spill of hydrocarbons when the tank shells and heads were breached even though the derailment happened in a marshy area where the surrounding terrain was particularly soft. Other occurrences investigated by the TSB have also revealed the vulnerability of this type of car to puncture, even in low-speed accidents (TSB report R99D0159 (Cornwall) and TSB report R05H0011 (Maxville)).”

Meanwhile, the US National Transportation Safety Board has been even more critical. In a 2012 report citing safety studies going back to 1991, Cynthia L. Quarterman of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials  Safety Administration wrote, “During a number of accident investigations over a period of years, the NTSB has noted that DOT-111 tank cars have a high incidence of tank failures during accidents.”