The movement of crude oil by rail across North America, with a special emphasis on shipments out of the Bakken, is facing much tougher scrutiny.
Canada’s Transportation Safety Board has called on Canadian and U.S. rail regulators to tighten their policing of crude shipments after determining that Bakken crude in tankers that derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, two months ago was improperly identified as a less volatile product.
In a safety advisory to Transport Canada and the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the TSB urged the regulators to review the processes for suppliers and companies transporting or importing dangerous goods to ensure the properties of the goods are accurately determined and documented.
Petroleum crude oil is categorized under three classes, depending on its flash-point.
The TSB said the 50,000 barrels of Bakken crude on the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway train was labeled as Class 3, the least hazardous when it should have been documented as Class 2.
TSB chief investigator Donald Ross said Sept. 11 that discrepancy partly explained “why the (tanks cars) ignited so quickly.”
He said the conclusions were reached after his agency sampled crude from nine intact tanker cars of the 52 that derailed in Lac-Megantic and a following train, also operated by MM&A. Both trains were destined for the Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick.
May not have made a difference
But Ross conceded in a webcast there is a “possibility” that even with accurate labeling there would have been no change in the emergency response measures and no way to avert the fire and explosions that claimed 47 lives.
However, he said accurate documentation is also “very important” for those handling crude at the loading and delivery ends.
He said that under Canadian legislation, Irving Oil, as the receiver of the crude, had the obligation to ensure the product was being moved in accordance with all regulations.
Ross cautioned reporters to be “careful about talking in absolute terms” in linking the labeling with the impact of the accident.
“We have more work to do,” he said. “We want to understand the safety management systems that (MM&A) employed.
“What considerations did (MM&A) take into account when making their operating plans? Were they aware of the hazard levels?”
Ross said the accident also “calls into question the adequacy” of the Class 111 tank cars, and their U.S. equivalent, commonly used to transport large quantities of low-flash flammable liquids.
“You can’t build a car to withstand anything,” he said. “We have gone to great lengths to document all of the physical damage to these cars.”
Ross said that includes 3-D imaging of the cars, records of where and how punctures occurred and whether there was a failure of pressure release valves.
He said that will determine whether the cars performed “reasonably” or not.
