| A freight train carrying a load of anhydrous ammonia derails, causing a toxic cloud to float over Calgary and leaving death and permanent injury in its aftermath. If that scenario sounds unlikely, think again.
Potentially lethal substances are being moved through Calgary by rail on a regular basis, and those responsible for protecting the public’s safety don’t know how often it’s occurring.
In Calgary, as in most Canadian cities, the first group mandated to respond to a train derailment is the local fire department. Don Wilson, hazardous materials co-ordinator for the Calgary Fire Department, says his organization remains concerned about the potential for harm due to freight trains carrying a "whole whack of dangerous goods" through the middle of the city.
"We don’t even know when the dangerous goods are on the train," he says.
Wilson explains that in addition to not knowing when dangerous materials are being moved by rail, the Calgary Fire Department also has no plan in place to respond to a train wreck.
"We don’t have a specific plan to deal with derailments," he says. "I don’t have a plan to respond to it. There are too many variables."
Wilson says all that the fire department can do is show up on the scene of a derailment and try to deal with the situation as it unfolds.
"The plans are built on the fly," he explains. "It’s not a pleasant thought to think about. There’s lots of population in Calgary and prevailing winds."
It’s the kind of situation two North American cities have already faced. In February 2001, a Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) freight train carrying ammonia derailed at Red Deer and forced a two-day evacuation of more than 5,000 residents. And more recently, in January 2002, just outside of Minot, North Dakota, another CPR freight train derailed, rupturing five freight tankers full of anhydrous ammonia that sent a cloud of the toxic substance over that city and left one man dead and hundreds of others in need of medical treatment.
Although industry insiders say the percentage of hazardous materials moved by rail is low – five per cent of CPR’s total freight, according to spokesman Ed Greenberg – it is now enough of a concern in Canada to have a federal government board, a railway union leader and a transportation critic raising serious questions about just how safe Canada’s freight trains really are.
According to information recently released by the Transportation Safety Board (TSB), the regulatory body mandated to investigate rail safety in Canada, trains are derailing on a more frequent basis. In 2005, a total of 1,246 rail accidents were reported to the TSB, including 215 involving toxic and dangerous goods.
William Brehl, president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, says rail safety should be a priority because the derailment of a train carrying dangerous goods in a metropolitan area such as Calgary "could mean serious property damage or loss of life."
"I’m as concerned as any Canadian should be with freight trains that are carrying dangerous goods in urban areas," says Brehl, whose organization represents employees at 23 railways, including more than 2,800 railway workers at Calgary-headquartered CPR.
Brehl attributes the increase in train derailments to the reduction of the number of railway staff inspecting lines and conducting other maintenance duties.
"You do the math," he says. "There is half the number of people now as there was 10 years ago. There aren’t enough checks and balances to keep the tracks safe. If you want to make sure the track is safe, you have to have people to inspect it."
Similar concerns have MP Peter Julian, transportation critic for the New Democrats, calling on the federal government to conduct an inquiry into railway safety in Canada.
In a letter to Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, Julian writes, "This is a serious concern, as railway safety track records have been steadily declining in recent years. Accidents per million train-miles have increased to 13.04 from 11.67. It seems that the real problem lies with the railways’ eagerness to bring down labour costs and increase profit margins – hence the move towards 125-car-length trains to increase the volume and value of goods that are shipped, and the cutbacks to staffing."
To date the Canadian government has not agreed to conduct an inquiry into railway safety. However, at a gathering of industry officials in Toronto, Cannon said Transport Canada, and representatives from the railway industry, are examining ways to improve safety.
In Calgary, Wilson remains pessimistic about discussions to improve the safety of Canada’s railways.
"They’re almost exempt from any rules," he says. "It’s difficult to work with them."
Train derailments on the rise
Both Canadian National Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. have experienced a marked increase in domestic train derailments over the past seven years, according to the Transportation Safety Board.
CN had a 35 per cent increase in derailments last year, while its main competitor, CPR, had a five per cent increase. Incidents in 2005 included 103 main track derailments for CN and 66 derailments on main tracks for CPR.
Among the most high-profile derailments of 2005 was a CN train that went off its tracks in August along the north shore of Wabamun Lake, located west of Edmonton, spilling more than 700,000 litres of Bunker C oil and wood preservative into the water.
Critics say the derailment at Lake Wabamun highlighted the lack of co-ordination that exists between railways and emergency services, with local officials often being unprepared and ill-equipped to respond to a train derailment involving hazardous materials.
In response to the Wabamun incident, Eric Newell, former CEO of Syncrude, was appointed by Alberta Environment Minister Guy Boutilier to chair the Environmental Protection Commission, which was asked to make recommendations on how it could improve emergency responses to environmental incidents.
The final report, titled Learning the Lessons and Building Change, was submitted to the provincial government in November 2005. The report made recommendations on how to improve a system it viewed as fragmented. It stated, "A risk reduction system has five pillars: prevention and mitigation; preparedness; response; recovery; and research and knowledge. Without a body of strength around each of these, Alberta will incur additional costs, potential loss of life and environmental damage as a result of a serious accident." |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.