Portrait of an Inept Government

[notyoueither]

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=1033b9a8-7e8e-4626-92dc-ff7a771adf79

Alta. officials don't know if existing disaster plan was followed at Wabamun

Bob Weber
Canadian Press

August 13, 2005

EDMONTON (CP) - The day after Alberta's environment minister was asked to develop a response plan for accidents such as the one that fouled a popular lake, officials acknowledge one already exists but can't say if it was followed.

"There are more than 100 tasks that need to be followed according to this plan," Irwin Huberman, director of communications for Alberta Environment, said Friday. "We don't know whether all tasks within the plan were followed. That will be determined by our very, very honest and frank investigation into our response."

On Thursday, Premier Ralph Klein asked Environment Minister Guy Boutilier to come up with a plan to deal with industrial accidents near bodies of water. The request came after a CN train derailment that sent 70,000 litres of fuel oil - and a small amount of a carcinogenic wood-treating oil - into the waters of Lake Wabamun.

Klein admitted the province deserves any criticism it gets over the way the incident has been handled.

Area residents have been critical of both CN and the province for the timing and extent of their clean-up response, which prompted Klein's order to Boutilier.

However, the government has had a document entitled Dangerous Goods Incident Support Plan in place since 2002. It was signed by Boutilier, who was then the minister of municipal affairs, and is available on the government's own website.

The document details procedures for handling all types of industrial accidents. It prescribes how to rate the accidents and who is responsible for what, depending on the type of accident.

Huberman said different departments are responsible for following different tasks within the plan.

"It will take an investigation . . . to confirm whether all tasks were followed by their departments," he said.

"Clearly, Premier Klein and the minister have indicated the plan did not fully work and we need to do better. For example, did we have enough booms and were they located in places where they could be easily or quickly accessed?"

Huberman said the review will also consider whether additional tasks need to be added to the plan.

"These are all factors that the full experience of going through one of these disasters, this is how you're taught whether the system works or not."

Federal Environment Minister Stephane Dion toured the site on Thursday, saying Ottawa will consider laying charges against CN over the incident.

© The Canadian Press 2005

On Aug 3 a CN train derailed and several tanker cars carrying petrochemicals spilled on the shore of a major lake.

The day after Alberta's environment minister was asked to develop a response plan for accidents such as the one that fouled a popular lake, officials acknowledge one already exists but can't say if it was followed.

The railroad reported that the spilled petrochemicals were relatively harmless, other than the oil slick. On Aug 10, they admitted that one of the tankers cars was loaded with a carginogenic petrochemical known as 'imperial pole treatment oil'. The load of 'imperial pole treatment oil' is clearly written on the manifest.

"There are more than 100 tasks that need to be followed according to this plan," Irwin Huberman, director of communications for Alberta Environment, said Friday. "We don't know whether all tasks within the plan were followed. That will be determined by our very, very honest and frank investigation into our response."

There were people wading out into the water to rescue birds stuck in the oil slick. People continued to use their wells until a warning was issued by the health region not to. CN workers were working on the site. The warning was issued 5 days after the train wreck. That was the first mention to anyone about substances toxic to humans.

Huberman said the review will also consider whether additional tasks need to be added to the plan.

"These are all factors that the full experience of going through one of these disasters, this is how you're taught whether the system works or not."

Train derailments and petrochemicals are new to this guy. I wonder if he is an import from a preindustrial society.

"Clearly, Premier Klein and the minister have indicated the plan did not fully work and we need to do better. For example, did we have enough booms and were they located in places where they could be easily or quickly accessed?"

In a province built on the petrochemical industry, and with a hell of a lot of lakes, CN was left to fend for itself and went to where they knew the materials were, far, far away. The Province was silent, for days...

This doesn't let CN or the Feds off the hook (transport and waterways are both federal jurisdictions). However, the total lack of a clue demonstrated by our provincial government is breathtaking.

The day after Alberta's environment minister was asked to develop a response plan for accidents such as the one that fouled a popular lake, officials acknowledge one already exists

And people wonder why nuclear power might be a bad plan in the wrong hands.

[Jon Miller]

all power sources might be a bad plan in the wrong hands..

it is something you just have to deal with..

look at costs/benefits, etc

JM

[notyoueither]

According to these clowns, you don't worry too much about emergencies until you are in the middle of one, and then they would leave the power company to deal with Chernobyl.

[Master Zen]

I thought this thread was about Mexico...

[KrazyHorse]

That's what you get for having a one-party system...

[Max Webster]

Hey CN is a private company now, profits come first, no time for stinking safety rules or environment crap. We got a business to run, money, money, money to be made. We got share holders who new Jacuzzis in their mansions.

Gee what to do you know Alberta not blaming the federal government for this one. Oh wait they will figure something out.

[DAVOUT]

That will be determined by our very, very honest and frank investigation into our response

Would not it be enough to say : That will be determined by our investigation into our response ? Or should I understand that ordinary investigations in Alberta are neither honest nor frank ? And that when an honest and frank investigation is made (likely by mistake), it is not VERY honest and franck, does it means that it includes dishonesties and lies ?
The last question on this fascinating subject is : how different is a VERY, VERY honest and franck investigation from a VERY honest and frank investigation ?

[Adam Smith]

I've worked in the railroad industry for 20 years, and worked on hazmat safety for about five of that. The US and Canada have similar protocols for dealing with hazmat spills. Here is how it works.

1. When a derailment occurs, the first thing the train crew does is call the train dispatcher to give their location. This enables the dispatcher to stop any oncoming trains, and also provide location for emergency response.

2. The train crew then provides a list of all hazardous materials (dangerous goods to you folks north of the border) on the train to the dispatcher. The hazardous materials are clearly listed on the trains manifest, which the crew has a copy of.

3. The train dispatcher then calls local police and fire uints and gives them the location of the derailment and warns them of specific hazardous materials that may be involved.

4. The train dispatcher then calls the state or provincial Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and advises them that there has been a hazardous materials spill at this location.

The whole process to this point usually takes about 20 minutes.

5. Once the police have arrived, THEY are responsible for the security of the location and any necessary evacuations.

6. Once the EPA arrives, THEY are responsible for determining which hazardous materials have spilled, and what the appropriate remediation should be.

7. The railroad is then responsible for any and all costs of cleanup at the EPA's direction.

If people somehow did not know that a carcinogenic hazardous material was spilled, then the local EPA screwed up, since they are responsible for making the determination of what was spilled.

If people were wandering around cleaning up oil slick ducks when there was still a hazard, then the police screwed up since they are responsible for site security.

If CN could not find the necessary cleanup materials, then they screwed up, since they are responsible for cleanup. (Cleanup is usually done by specialized on-call contractors.)

HERE is a page describing the Canadian process.
HERE is a guide for Canadian first responders.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's what you get for having a one-party system...

One would have to assume so. The opposition should be able to make some hay with this though.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I've worked in the railroad industry for 20 years, and worked on hazmat safety for about five of that. The US and Canada have similar protocols for dealing with hazmat spills. Here is how it works.

Thanks for that, AS.

In this case, the Province has done very little, from what I can tell, except issue a couple of orders to CN compelling them to clean it up.

The first was issued three days in, or so. It was issued after local residents got pissed off by a lack of information and action from CN. They blocked the tracks until the RCMP came to remove them. They raised a big stink though.

Today, eleven days later, they issued another order telling CN to have it cleaned up and to set out a plan by tonight. Don't look at me, I know it sounds stupid.

The question a lot of us are asking is... do we want the clean up and restoration being planned by a company that is going to want the lowest possible cost? Hmmm...

It just seems that the Province is being far too reliant on a transportaion company to manage an ecological disaster (not a huge disaster, but a pretty significant one none the less).

[Asher]

There were people wading out into the water to rescue birds stuck in the oil slick.

The last thing any reasonable person would do when you see a train carrying chemical cars derails and spills...

Horrifically stupid, deliciously darwinistic.

[notyoueither]

They were told the cars carried only 'bunker c' oil, and that it was harmless to people.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, then, eugenics

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The question a lot of us are asking is... do we want the clean up and restoration being planned by a company that is going to want the lowest possible cost? Hmmm...

The key is that the cleanup must be done to existing EPA standards, which the railroad has no say over.* The standard of cleanup varies from chemical to chemical. For a spill on land you have to clean up the surface and remove all soil down to so many feet (depth depends on chemical). For water spills, you have to remove all surface chemical, and reduce residual chemical in water to so many parts per million (again, standard depends on chemical). If the EPA has already determined the appropriate standard, then, yes, I would like remediation to that standard done at the lowest possible cost.

*The sole exception of which I am aware was the July 22, 1989 derailment in Freeland, MI, which resulted in a substantial release of formaldehyde. The Michigan EPA ordered the railroad to clean up the spill to the existing standard. Only problem was that formaldehyde can occur naturally, and already existed at the site at a higher level than the EPA standard. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court before ruling that the railroad did not have to pay to clean up nature.

Originally posted by notyoueither It just seems that the Province is being far too reliant on a transportation company to manage an ecological disaster (not a huge disaster, but a pretty significant one none the less).

A few years ago I did a study of the costs associated with 120 or so major hazmat spills. (CN was one of the railroads that participated in the study.) One of the findings was that after you add up all the costs, including purifying ground water, in many cases for years, to meet EPA standards, major hazmat spills cost a lot more than the railroads previously thought. Another finding was that local governments and private individuals were very good at recovering these costs from railroads (and in some cases chemical companies). The reason is that railroads have large, identifiable fixed assets. Plaintiffs know where the defendants live and know they can be made to pay. (Contrast this with the case of small trucking companies, who can be here today, gone tomorrow, or driven into bankruptcy by a large hazmat spill.)

This study won the Best Industry Research Award for 1996. As a result of this study, the railroad industry began putting many chemicals, especially carcinogens that are heavier than water, in safer tank cars. This is, sincerely, the work I am most proud of in my career.

All that said, I don't understand why it has taken eleven days to get a plan organized and moving. CN is usually pretty good about this sort of thing.

edit: spelling