ARCHIVED - Focus on Safety and Environment - A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance - 2000-2006

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Focus on Safety and Environment - A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance - 2000-2006 [PDF 5125 KB]

Copyright/Permission to Reproduce

July 2008

Photos: First: Left - Shane Richardon, Top right - Laura Randall, Bottom right -  Marc Pauzé

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Tables
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Foreword
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 The National Energy Board
1.2 Performance Indicators
1.2.1 Safety, Integrity and Environment
1.2.2 Reporting
1.3 Reference Organizations
2. Analysis of Pipeline Performance
2.1 Fatalities
2.2 Injuries
2.2.1 Detailed Injury Analysis
2.3 Ruptures
2.4 Pipeline Unauthorized Activities
2.5 Liquid Releases, Leaks and Spills
2.6 Gas Releases and Leaks
2.7 NEB Reportable Incidents
3. Conclusion
Glossary
Appendix One
A1 Reference Organizations and Data Sources
A1.1 Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)
A1.2 Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)
A1.3 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
A1.4 Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada (PLCAC)
A1.5 United States Department of Transport, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration - Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA)
A1.6 United States Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
A1.7 European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG)
A1.8 European Oil Companies Association for Environment, Health and Safety (CONCAWE)
A1.9 International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP)
Appendix Two
A2 Reporting Criteria and Injury Definitions
Appendix Three
A3 Raw Data

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figures
2.1 NEB-Regulated Pipeline Fatalities
2.2 Injury Frequency Comparisons for NEB-Regulated Pipelines
2.3 Worker Injury Frequency Comparisons
2.4 NEB-Regulated Liquid Pipeline Injury Frequency
2.5 NEB-Regulated Gas Pipeline Injury Frequency
2.6 Employee Injury Frequency Comparisons
2.7 Contractor Injury Frequency Comparisons
2.8 NEB-Regulated Pipeline Ruptures
2.9 NEB Pipeline Ruptures - Primary Causes
2.10 Comparison of Rupture by Cause
2.11 Pipe Body Liquid Release Frequency Comparisons
2.12 Pipe Body Liquid Release Volume Frequency Comparisons
2.13 NEB-Regulated Pipelines Operational Liquid Leak Frequency
2.14 Pipe Body Gas Release Frequency Comparisons
2.15 NEB-Regulated Pipelines Operation Gas Leak Frequency
2.16 OPR Incidents by Occurrence Type
2.17 OPR Incidents by Incident Type

Tables

Tables
1 Performance Indicator Comparison
2.1 OPR-99 Contractor Serious Injuries (2000-2006)
2.2 Contractor Serious Injury Causes (2000-2006)
2.3 Non-Compliances Observed on NEB Construction Safety Inspections
2.4 Rupture Primary Causes
2.5 Unauthorized Activities on Rights of Way
2.6 Pipe Body Liquid Releases
2.7 Operational Liquid Leaks
2.8 Non-product Liquid Spills on NEB-Regulated Liquid and Gas Pipelines
2.9 Gas Releases and Leaks on NEB-Regulated Pipelines
A2.1 Comparison of Reporting Criteria for Ruptures
A2.2 Injury Definitions of Comparative Data Sources
A2.3 Comparison of Liquid Release Reporting Criteria
A2.4 Comparison of Gas Release Reporting Criteria
A3.1 NEB-Regulated Pipeline Statistics
A3.2 NEB Injury Frequency Data
A3.3 Reference Organization Statistics
A3.4 Injury Frequency Data (Number of Injuries per 200 000 Hours Worked)

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BLS United States Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
CLC Part II Canada Labour Code Part II - Occupational Health and Safety
COGOA National Energy Board activities regulated under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act
CONCAWE European Oil Companies Association for Environment, Health and Safety
CSA Canadian Standards Association
EGIG European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group
ERCB Energy Resources Conservation Board (formerly Alberta Energy and Utilities Board)
FTE Full-time Equivalent
HRSDC Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
LWC or LWDC Lost Workday Case
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEB National Energy Board
NGL Natural Gas Liquids
OGP International Association of Oil and Gas Producers
OPR-99 Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PLCAC Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada
RWC or RWDC Restricted Workday Case

Foreword

This report, Focus on Safety and Environment: A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance, 2000-2006, examines the number and frequency of various incidents that affect pipeline safety, integrity and the environment. The main objective of this report is to evaluate the pipeline performance of NEB-regulated companies over time and in comparison to pipeline performance in other jurisdictions.

Photo: Marc PauzéThe first of the NEB's annual performance indicators reports, Focus on Safety: A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Safety Performance, was published in April 2003. This sixth edition of the report includes data from 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2006.

The NEB continually seeks input and feedback from stakeholders on the value of this report and ways it can be improved. Any comments or questions pertaining to this report should be directed to:

In English or French:

Mrs. Nadia McCarthy
Operations Business Unit
National Energy Board
444 Seventh Avenue SW
Calgary, AB
T2P 0X8
Phone: 403-299-3690
Toll Free: 1-800-899-1265
Facsimile: 403-292-5503

Executive Summary

There are hundreds of thousands of kilometres of pipe in Canada, more than 45,000 kilometres of which are regulated by the National Energy Board. Our role is to promote pipeline safety - safety for the workers, safety for the environment and safety for Canadians.

One of the ways the National Energy Board promotes pipeline safety is to ask the 104 companies we regulate to share their performance data on occupational injuries, hours of work, and leaks and spills. The NEB analyzes this data and uses it to develop performance indicators. These indicators are used to identify trends within the industry as well as to evaluate a company's individual performance compared to the industry average. In addition, the indicators are used by the NEB to help develop operation compliance plans. These plans help the NEB to assign its compliance verification resources where they are most needed. These indicators suggest that pipelines remain a safe method of moving the vast amount of energy Canadians need to heat our homes, fuel our vehicles and power our economy.

The Board uses eight key indicators to evaluate how well NEB-regulated companies are performing in the areas of worker safety, integrity management programs and protecting the environment. These performance indicators and the Board's findings for 2006 are listed below:

  • Number of Fatalities

    For the ninth consecutive year, there were no fatalities on NEB-regulated pipelines in 2006.
  • Number of Pipeline Ruptures

    2006 was the fourth year in a row with no ruptures on NEB-regulated oil and gas pipelines. Since the requirement to implement pipeline integrity management programs was introduced by the NEB in 1999, the rupture frequency rate has dropped from 2.7 ruptures annually from 1991 to 1999 to 0.85 ruptures annually from 2000 to 2006.
  • Number of Injuries

    Injuries were on the rise in 2006. The annual injury frequency for employees working on pipelines more than doubled to 1.5 injuries for every 100 full-time employees. For the first time in seven years, the annual injury frequency for regular company employees was nearly identical to the annual injury frequency for contractors.
  • Number of Pipeline Contacts

    There was one contact and 65 unauthorized activities on NEB-regulated pipelines in 2006. While the number of pipeline contacts is below the 2000 to 2006 average of 1.4 pipeline contacts annually, the number of unauthorized activities is above the seven-year average of 51. The growth of urban areas and new developments near pipelines increases the likelihood of unauthorized excavations or other disturbances that can damage the pipeline.
  • Number of liquid releases, leaks and spills and Volume and Frequency of liquid releases, leaks and spills

    The number of spills on liquid pipelines rose to 161 from 101 in 2005 and the number of releases greater than 1 500 litres increased from 6 to 11 occurrences in 2006. However, the total volume of petroleum products involved in these incidents was very low and dropped below 2005 volumes.
  • Number and frequency of gas releases

    Over the past seven years, there has been about one pipe body release for every 14 300 kilometres of gas pipelines. Operational gas leaks, or leaks from non-gas pipe body sources, are about ten times more likely than leaks caused by the failure of the pipe body.
  • Number of NEB reportable incidents under the OPR-99

    NEB-regulated companies are legally required to report certain incidents to the Board, such as a serious injury or an unintentional pipeline release. These incidents are defined in the OPR-99. In 2006, there were 37 incidents and the most common reportable incident was an unintended gas release.

This report uses the data and accompanying analysis to provide the National Energy Board with some of the information used to prioritize the Board's compliance verification activities, such as audits and inspections. Safety, integrity and the environment have been an integral part of the NEB's mandate for nearly 50 years. The NEB is concerned about the rising number of injuries identified in this year's report and will continue to track these issues and work closely with industry to improve workplace safety. Through active participation in standards development, pipeline research, and awareness programs, as well as partnerships with other regulators, the NEB is actively involved in promoting safety and environmental protection.

The NEB is committed to maintaining a high level of vigilance over all aspects of pipeline activities.

Table 1 - Performance Indicator Comparison*

Table 1 - Performance Indicator Comparison*
Performance Indicator 2005 2006 Historical Average
2000-2006
Number of Fatalities (employee, contractor and third-party) 0 0 0
Worker Injury Frequency (injuries per 200 000 hours) 0.7 1.5 1.0
Contractor Injury Frequency (injuries per 200 000 hours) 1.1 1.6 2.2
Employee Injury Frequency (injuries per 200 000 hours) 0.6 1.5 0.6
Liquid Pipeline Worker Injury Frequency (injuries per 200 000 hours) 0.9 1.6 1.5
Gas Pipeline Worker Injury Frequency (injuries per 200 000 hours) 0.7 1.5 0.9
Total Number of Pipeline Ruptures 0 0 0.9
Total Number of Pipeline Contacts 1 1 1.4
Pipe Body Liquid Release Frequency (number of liquid releases per 1 000 km) 0.1 0.3 0.1
Pipe Body Liquid Release Volume Frequency (m³ of liquid released per 1 000 km) 17.8 2.5 35.7
Number of Operational Liquid Leaks (on liquid pipelines) 51 38 43.6
Operational Liquid Leak Frequency (number of leaks per 1 000 km liquid pipelines) 3.1 2.6 2.8
Pipe Body Gas Release Frequency (number of gas releases per 1 000 km gas pipelines) 0.1 0.0 0.1
Number of Operational Gas Leaks (on gas pipelines) 19 21 18.1
Operational Gas Leak Frequency (number of leaks per 1 000 km gas pipelines) 0.7 0.7 0.7
Number of Non-pipeline Spills (consruction & maintenance liquid spills) 48 124 81
Total Number of Incidents (reportable OPR-99) 39 37 37.6
* See Glossary for definitions of performance indicators.

1. Introduction

1.1 The National Energy Board

The NEB regulates 104 oil, gas, and product pipeline companies that operate approximately 45 000 kilometres of pipelines across Canada under the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 (OPR-99). This network includes large diameter (up to 42 inches in diameter), high-pressure natural gas pipelines, crude oil and oil products pipelines, as well as small-diameter pipelines (typically 4 to 12 inches in diameter), and a number of commodity pipelines.

Photo: Marc PauzéThe NEB's purpose is to promote safety, security, environmental protection and efficient energy infrastructure in the Canadian public interest within the mandate set by Parliament in the regulation of pipelines, energy development and trade.

The NEB has additional regulatory responsibilities under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) for oil and gas exploration and production activities in the North (excluding the Yukon) and in those offshore areas that are not subject to a federal-provincial shared management agreement. Some data from COGOA-regulated activities are included in this report for comparison purposes.

Other aspects of the NEB's mandate include the regulation of gas plants under the Processing Plant Regulations and some international and inter-provincial power lines. Along with Natural Resources Canada, the NEB plays a leading role in ensuring the effective functioning of energy supply systems in Canada. It has also been responsible for the security of Canada's federal energy infrastructure since 2005.

For the purpose of comparison throughout this report, the term "pipeline" includes: all branches, extensions, tanks, reservoirs, storage facilities, pipes, pumps, valves, racks, compressors, storage tanks and loading facilities integral to the operation of a hydrocarbon pipeline. The performance data in this report is for natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon pipelines only. Commodity pipelines, gas plants, power lines and security information is not reported upon in the NEB's Focus on Safety and Environment report.

1.2 Performance Indicators

Performance indicators provide information on trends and are used by industry and government to assess performance over time and relative to other sectors. Industry trends and benchmarking comparisons can provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of safety, integrity and environmental management systems. The NEB uses performance indicators to improve regulatory compliance monitoring programs by identifying areas where more vigilant oversight is needed as well as areas where less oversight may be justified.

1.2.1 Safety, Integrity and Environment

This report presents information on eight performance indicators which are used to evaluate: i) the safety of pipeline workers - including both employees and contractors, ii) the effectiveness of pipeline integrity programs, and iii) the protection of the environment.

The performance indicators reported upon are:

  • number of fatalities;
  • number of injuries;
  • number of pipeline ruptures;
  • number of pipeline contacts;
  • number of liquid releases, leaks and spills;
  • volume and frequency of liquid releases, leaks and spills;
  • number and frequency of gas releases; and
  • number of NEB reportable incidents under the OPR-99.

1.2.2 Reporting

The data in this report was obtained through both voluntary reporting and the OPR-99's mandatory reporting requirements. In August 2007, the NEB sent a letter to all its NEB Act regulated companies requesting their voluntary 2006 performance data regarding: Occupational Injury and Hours of Work (for both employees and contractors), Company Employee Safety Training Hours, and Leaks and Spills. Although not all companies submitted the requested data, companies representing approximately 98 per cent of the total length of NEB-regulated pipelines have provided their data.

It is important to note that company participation in this initiative is vital. Without full participation, it is difficult to make conclusions that are representative of the entire Canadian pipeline industry. The analysis of the voluntary data helps both the Board and the companies it regulates to better understand safety, integrity and environmental performance. Appendix A3 provides a list of companies who have voluntarily reported for 2006 and outlines the pipeline kilometres reported upon every year.

1.3 Reference Organizations

Where similar data is available, this report provides a comparative analysis of NEB performance indicators with that of other organizations. The external data is based mainly on publicly available documents provided on websites and in published reports. In some cases, specific data were acquired through direct correspondence with the reference organizations. The following organizations have been selected for comparison:

  • BLS: United States Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics;
  • CAPP: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers;
  • COGOA: National Energy Board activities regulated under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act;
  • CONCAWE: European Oil Companies Association for Environment, Health and Safety;
  • EGIG: European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group;
  • ERCB: Energy Resources Conservation Board;
  • HRSDC: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada;
  • OGP: International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.
  • PHMSA: United States Department of Transport - Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration - Office of Pipeline Safety; and,
  • PLCAC: Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

Detailed information on these reference organizations including web addresses and data sources are listed in Appendix A1.

Photo: Kim Maddin

2. Analysis of Pipeline Performance

2.1 Fatalities

Fatalities have an immediate and devastating effect on families, communities, companies and the industry as a whole. They may also act as a catalyst for changes to legislation, regulations, industry codes and standards.

Fatality data provided by NEB-regulated companies have been separated into three categories:

  1. Employee Fatalities

    These are fatalities that occur while an employee is involved in activities associated with their job duties. Employee data from NEB-regulated pipelines do not include head office staff but do include staff from other facility offices.
  2. Contractor Fatalities

    These are fatalities that occur while a contract worker is involved in activities pursuant to their contract with a pipeline company. Contractor data include contractors performing activities related to the construction, operation, or maintenance of NEB-regulated pipelines.
  3. Third-party Fatalities

    These are fatalities involving persons other than contractors or employees.
Photo: Karen Duckworth

Figure 2.1 shows the number and cause of all reported fatalities on NEB-regulated pipelines since 1991. The year 2006 is the ninth consecutive year in which there have been no fatalities on NEB-regulated pipelines.[1] The fatalities reported between 1991 and 1997 were contractor fatalities and involved construction activities. Since 1997, several hundred kilometres of new pipelines have been constructed and existing pipelines expanded without any fatalities.

[1] In 2005, a fatality did occur on a NEB-regulated pipeline construction site; however, it was determined that the fatality was not work related but was the result of a medical condition.

Figure 2.1 - NEB-Regulated Pipeline Fatalities

Figure 2.1 - NEB-Regulated Pipeline Fatalities

2.2 Injuries

The pipeline industry when compared to other transportation and energy industries continues to exhibit an enviable safety record. Statistics published by HRSDC, for industries under Canadian federal jurisdiction, for 2005 indicate that only banking has a lower injury frequency than pipelines.

For this report, injury data submitted by NEB-regulated companies have been separated into three categories:

  1. Photo: Karen DuckworthEmployee Injuries

    These are injuries that occur while an employee is involved in activities associated with their job duties. Employee data from NEB-regulated pipelines do not include head office staff but do include staff from other facility offices.
  2. Contractor Injuries

    These are injuries that occur while a contract worker is involved in activities pursuant to their contract with a pipeline company. Contractor data include contractors performing activities related to the construction, operation, or maintenance of NEB-regulated pipelines.
  3. Worker Injuries

    These are a combination of the above two categories: employee and contractor injuries.

Employee, contractor, and worker injury frequencies for NEB-regulated pipelines from 2000 to 2006 are reported both under the OPR-99 and voluntarily, as such this data includes all lost time and restricted workday injuries but excludes fatalities. All injury frequencies are measured in terms of injuries per 200 000 hours of work. The 200 000 hours of work is a widely used frequency denominator in the health and safety industry and is equivalent to the number of hours worked by 100 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) in one year.

As shown in Figure 2.2 the worker injury frequency has increased from 0.72 injuries per 200 000 hours in 2005 to 1.55 in 2006, with an overall seven year average of 1.02 injuries per 200 000 hours for all workers. In 2006, for the first time since the inception of this report, the injury frequency reported for employees matched very closely with the injury frequency reported for contractors. At this time, the unprecedented high levels of employee injuries cannot be explained. Factors such as: increased activity, the level of experience of employees, the complexity of the work being undertaken, the lack of resources (resulting in overtime), inadequate training, as well as poor hazard assessment programs may contribute to the high frequency observed in 2006.

Figure 2.2 - Injury Frequency Comparisons for NEB-Regulated Pipelines

Figure 2.2 - Injury Frequency Comparisons for NEB-Regulated Pipelines

Injury Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.3 compares the NEB-regulated pipeline worker injury frequency to the same parameter for COGOA , CAPP and OGP from 2000 to 2006.

Figure 2.3 - Worker Injury Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.3 - Worker Injury Frequency Comparisons

The worker injury frequency for NEB-regulated pipelines tends to be higher than that of COGOA-regulated activities and this trend continued in 2006. For the first time since this report's inception, the worker injury frequency for NEB-regulated pipelines is higher than that reported by CAPP in 2006. Also of note is that CAPP data has shown a downward trend since 2000. The OGP have shown very consistent injury frequencies over the last five years, in contrast to NEB-regulated pipelines which have shown an increasing trend in injury frequencies in the last three years.

Table A2.2 in Appendix A2 is a summary of injury definitions used by the NEB and the reference organizations. Generally, all definitions reflect either the inability of a worker to report to work the next day or from effectively performing all of their regular work duties. A summary of employee and contractor hours and the number of injuries incurred since 2000 is provided in Table A3.2 of Appendix A3.

2.2.1 Detailed Injury Analysis

To better understand reported injury frequencies, the data is further broken down into contractor and employee injury frequencies, contractor serious injury types and causes, and non-compliances observed by the NEB on construction projects. Some of the injury data are further separated into liquid and gas pipeline-related injuries to enable analysis of injury data by sector.

NEB-Regulated Liquid Pipeline Injuries

Liquid pipelines include crude oil, refined product and NGL pipelines. Figure 2.4 shows the contractor, employee and worker injury frequencies for NEB-regulated liquid pipelines. Note that in 2002, there were no contractor or employee injuries reported.

Figure 2.4 - NEB-Regulated Liquid Pipeline Injury Frequency

Figure 2.4 - NEB-Regulated Liquid Pipeline Injury Frequency

The liquid pipeline contractor injury frequency in 2006, 2.34 injuries per 200 000 hours, increased to the highest reported level in 5 years, although it is still lower than the seven year average of 3.58. The liquid pipeline employee injury frequency in 2006 also experienced an increase to the highest levels reported in 5 years.

NEB-Regulated Gas Pipeline Injuries

Figure 2.5 shows the contractor, employee and worker injury frequencies for NEB-regulated gas pipelines.

Figure 2.5 - NEB-Regulated Gas Pipeline Injury Frequency

Figure 2.5 - NEB-Regulated Gas Pipeline Injury Frequency

The gas pipeline contractor injury frequency in 2006, 1.3 injuries per 200 000 hours, increased slightly from the levels reported in 2004 and 2005, although it is lower than the seven year average of 2.1. The gas pipeline employee injury frequency in 2006 exhibited an increase to the highest levels reported in 7 years. Moreover, for the first time since this report's inception, the reported employee injury frequency is higher than that of contractors.

Employee Injury Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.6 compares the NEB-regulated pipeline employee injury frequency to the same parameter for reference organizations for the period of 2000 to 2006.

Figure 2.6 - Employee Injury Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.6 - Employee Injury Frequency Comparisons

NEB-regulated pipeline companies showed a marked increase in the number of employee injuries between 2005 and 2006, while the CAPP frequency decreased and the BLS frequency remained essentially the same. As discussed in Table A2.2 of Appendix A2, industry classifications for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) were changed in 2003 rendering the 2003 to 2006 injury data for the U.S. pipeline transportation industry comparable to employee data from NEB-regulated pipelines. As such, BLS data for 2002 and earlier are not included in Figure 2.6.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) also publishes employee injury frequency data, which include disabling injuries to employees working in head and regional offices, while NEB-regulated pipeline employee injury data do not. However, the HRSDC employee injury frequency for 2000 to 2005[2] ranged from 0.3 to 0.56 injuries per 200 000 hours, a similar range to the NEB frequencies for those years.

[2] 2006 data is not yet available.

Contractor Injury Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.7 compares the NEB-regulated pipeline contractor injury frequency to the same parameter for the reference organizations for the period of 2000 to 2006. In order to report injury frequencies, a PLCAC member company must report on at least 50 000 contractor hours. PLCAC member companies did not meet this threshold for 2003 through 2005. As a result of the low number of hours worked by PLCAC member companies on pipelines in 2006, the injury frequency data for that year may not be appropriately represented.

Figure 2.7 - Contractor Injury Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.7 - Contractor Injury Frequency Comparisons

The injury frequency rate for contractors working on NEB-regulated pipelines is on average very similar to other organizations. The NEB seven-year average indicates that two out of 100 contractors sustain serious injuries, as defined by the OPR-99, every year.

Contractor Serious Injuries

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the types of serious injuries incurred by contractors on NEB-regulated pipelines between 2000 and 2006 that were reported pursuant to the OPR-99. A definition of serious injuries, as defined by the OPR-99, is presented in Table A2.2 in Appendix A2. There were no serious injuries reported in 2002.

Table 2.1 - OPR-99 Contractor Serious Injuries (2000-2006)

Table 2.1 - OPR-99 Contractor Serious Injuries (2000-2006)
Type of Event or Exposure Number of Serious Injuries
Contact with Objects & Equipment
Struck by Object 5
Caught in Object 3
Struck against Object 1
Contact with Electricity 2
Other 0
Falls  
Fall on Same Level 0
Fall to Lower Level 2
Other 0
Transportation Accidents 1
Fire and Explosions 0
Total Number of Serious Injuries 14

The NEB has conducted further analysis on the causes of OPR-reportable incidents, particularly in relation to contractors. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2.2. The NEB is aware that the historic contractor injury frequency is on average significantly higher than employee frequency. The Board believes that injury frequencies within employee and contractor populations should be similar. The frequency of hazard exposure among contractors may be greater than for employees but protective measures should be designed to mitigate the increased risks.

Table 2.2 - Contractor Serious Injury Causes (2000-2006)*

Table 2.2 - Contractor Serious Injury Causes (2000-2006)*
Direct Causes 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Substandard Acts Improper position for task   1     1     2
Improper placement 1 1   1     1 4
Using equipment improperly   1       1   2
Failure to warn 1             1
Failure to secure       1       1
Failure to follow procedures           1   1
Substandard Conditions Hazardous environmental conditions           1   1
Inadequate sign or label         1     1
Total Injuries               13
Basic Causes                
Job Factors Inadequate leadership / supervision 1 2           3
Inadequate tools and equipment       1       1
Inadequate work standards       1 1     2
Inadequate engineering           1   1
Personal Factors Poor Judgment   1       1 1 3
Lack of knowledge           1   1
Improper motivation 1       1     2
Total Injuries               13
* Note that the total number of injuries in this table is lower than that shown in Table 2.2. This is due to an incident wherein a vehicle being driven by a contract employee was struck by a stolen vehicle entering the highway from a ditch.

Contractor serious injury causes are separated into direct (or immediate) and basic (or underlying) causes.

Construction Safety Inspections

As part of its activities to monitor compliance with the OPR-99 and other safety regulations, the NEB regularly inspects pipeline construction projects. The safety non-compliances observed during inspections are most often corrected immediately on-site. They are recorded and tracked, and special attention is paid by the NEB and companies to those non-compliances which are commonly observed. In this way, both the NEB and its regulated companies are able to employ a proactive approach to incident prevention and help encourage the development of a safety culture at all construction sites.

The NEB continues to inspect pipeline construction to monitor and evaluate field activities and to better understand and communicate to the industry the measures that can be taken to improve worker safety.

Table 2.3 - Non-Compliances Observed on NEB Construction Safety Inspections

Table 2.3 - Non-Compliances Observed on NEB Construction Safety Inspections
Type of Non-Compliance 2005 2006
Personal Protective Equipment    
Hearing Protection 1 1
Face Shields or Safety Glasses 14 5
Hard Hats 1 2
High Visibility Vests 0 1
Unsafe Work Practices    
Riding Suspended Pipe/Straddling Pipe 3 4
Pinch Points 3 3
Guidelines/Tag Lines 0 1
Explosion Hazard 0 0
Ingress/Egress 1 0
MSDS 0 1
Danger Zones 1 1
Scaffolding 0 0
Total Number of Non-compliances Observed 24 19
Number of NEB Construction Safety Inspections Conducted 14 14

2.3 Ruptures

Ruptures are defined in Annex H of CSA Z662[3] as a "loss of containment event that immediately impairs the operation of the pipeline". Pipeline ruptures have the potential to be severely detrimental to safety and the environment.

[3] The definition of "rupture" is the same in both the 2003 and 2007 editions of CSA Z662.

Ruptures are always investigated and analyzed to determine their primary cause. This report considers the number of ruptures and their primary cause from 1991 onward for all NEB-regulated pipelines. The year 2006 is the fourth consecutive year in which there have been no reported ruptures on NEB-regulated pipelines.

As shown in Figure 2.8 between 1991 and 2002, there was an average of 2.5 ruptures per year and zero ruptures thereafter. Beginning in 1999, companies were required under the OPR-99 to have integrity management programs. The proactive nature and the evolution of individual company integrity management programs may be responsible for the low number of ruptures since 2002.

Figure 2.8 - NEB-Regulated Pipeline Ruptures

Figure 2.8 - NEB-Regulated Pipeline Ruptures

Table 2.4 provides a breakdown of reported ruptures on NEB-regulated pipelines and their primary cause while Figure 2.9 shows the data in graphical form. The primary cause of ruptures on NEB-regulated pipelines between 1991 and 2006 was cracking, followed by metal loss. Cracking includes hydrogen-induced and mechanical damage delayed cracking, stress corrosion, and corrosion fatigue. Metal loss includes both internal and external corrosion. The category of "Other Causes" includes improper operation, fire and yet to be determined causes.

Table 2.4 - Rupture Primary Causes

Table 2.4 - Rupture Primary Causes
Year Number of Ruptures Primary Causes
Metal Loss Cracking External Interference Material, Manufacturing or Construction Geo-
technical Failure
Other Causes
1991 3   2   1    
1992 3 1 1       1
1993 1     1      
1994 6 2 1     1 2
1995 4 1 3        
1996 3 2 1        
1997 2 1       1  
1998 1           1
1999 1   1        
2000 1       1    
2001 2 1 1        
2002 3   1       2
2003 0            
2004 0            
2005 0            
2006 0            
Total 30 8 11 1 2 2 6

Figure 2.9 - NEB Pipeline Ruptures - Primary Causes

Figure 2.9 - NEB Pipeline Ruptures - Primary Causes

Some pipelines of specific vintage and of certain construction methods have experienced higher rupture frequencies than others.[4] Since 1991, no ruptures have occurred on NEB-regulated pipelines that have been in operation for less than 12 years. A number of factors have contributed to the absence of ruptures on new pipelines, including the quality of pipeline coatings and cathodic protection, new construction methods, effective pressure testing and well-developed integrity management programs.

[4] Jeglic, F. Analysis of Ruptures and Trends on major Canadian Pipeline Systems. National Energy Board, Calgary, Canada, 2004.

Rupture Cause Comparisons

Figure 2.10 compares the distribution of NEB-regulated pipeline ruptures since 1991 by cause to those reported by the ERCB, PHMSA and EGIG. While each organization has different timeframes over which they have examined rupture causes, evidence from these organizations suggests that the leading cause of ruptures generally remains constant over time.

Figure 2.10 - Comparison of Rupture by Cause

Figure 2.10 - Comparison of Rupture by Cause

To facilitate a more representative comparison between organizations with different reporting criteria, ruptures caused by metal loss and cracking, as defined by CSA Z662, have been combined and compared to ruptures caused by corrosion. Ruptures brought on by natural causes are compared with geotechnical and other causes.

Photo: Marc PauzéAgain, note that the leading cause of ruptures on NEB-regulated pipelines is corrosion, including cracking and metal loss. In contrast, U.S. data from PHMSA indicate that while corrosion is still a leading cause, external interference constitutes the second most frequent cause of pipeline ruptures. EGIG and ERCB data indicate that external interference is the leading cause of pipeline ruptures.

Because of differences in pipeline content and purpose (i.e., gathering, transmission, distribution), exact comparisons are difficult. This may account for differences in rupture or failure modes. The population densities in the U.S. and Europe are significantly greater than that of Canada, which may account for the increased number of ruptures caused by external interference reported to PHMSA and EGIG. The density of the ERCB-regulated pipeline network coupled with high levels of construction in the Alberta oil and gas sector may account for higher external interference rates in Alberta.

2.4 Pipeline Unauthorized Activities

Unauthorized activities reported under the NEB Pipeline Crossing Regulations (Part I and Part II) include actions that have the potential to damage a pipeline or that may impede access to a pipeline for the purposes of maintenance or emergency response.

Unauthorized activities or events considered to be indicators related to pipeline integrity include:

  • movement of vehicles or equipment over pipelines;
  • construction activities with no soil disturbance;
  • construction, landscaping, or grading that results in soil disturbance; and
  • construction, landscaping, or grading that results in pipeline contact.

The number of reported, unauthorized activities with the potential to damage pipelines is provided in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 - Unauthorized Activities on Rights of Way

Table 2.5 - Unauthorized Activities on Rights of Way
Year Activities With No Soil Disturbance Actvities With Soil Disturbance Pipeline Contacts Total
Landowner Contractor Landowner Contractor Land-
owner
Contrac-
tor
2000 5 0 12 26 0 2 45
2001 7 0 14 27 1 0 49
2002 2 0 7 13 0 1 23
2003 9 4 7 30 2 0 52
2004 4 2 12 33 1 1 53
2005 11 2 20 37 0 1 71
2006 6 4 23 32 0 1 66
Average 6.3 1.7 13.6 28.3 0.6 0.9 51.3

The total number of unauthorized activities decreased from 71 in 2005 to 66 in 2006, however in both years the numbers of unauthorized activities are above the seven-year average of 51.3. The number of pipeline contacts is consistently low, ranging from 1 to 2 per year, or less than 5 percent of the total number of unauthorized activities. Increasing urban encroachment on pipeline rights of way is expected to become a more significant concern in the future and may result in an increased number of unauthorized activities along rights of way.

2.5 Liquid Releases, Leaks and Spills

NEB-Regulated Liquid Pipelines

Pipe Body Liquid Releases (Ruptures and Leaks)

For the purpose of this report, any pipe body failure (including ruptures and leaks) resulting in a volume greater than 1.5 m³ is considered a liquid release. Liquid releases of volumes less than 1.5 m³ are not considered reportable incidents under OPR-99 (although data regarding liquid releases of volumes less than 1.5 m³ were requested under the voluntary reporting initiative).

Table 2.6 shows the number and total volume of liquid releases from the pipe body on NEB-regulated liquid pipelines between 2000 and 2006.

Table 2.6 - Pipe Body Liquid Releases

Table 2.6 - Pipe Body Liquid Releases
Year Number of Releases >1.5 m³ Total Release Volume (m³)
2000 0 0
2001 2 3 650
2002 2 52
2003 0 0
2004 0 0
2005 2 254
2006 4 39

NEB-regulated pipelines experienced few pipe body liquid releases over the period of 2000 to 2006. There were no liquid releases in 2000, 2003 or 2004 from NEB-regulated pipelines and although there were four liquid pipe body releases in 2006 they were all of relatively small volumes. Overall, NEB-regulated liquid pipelines have a seven year average of 0.09 pipe body liquid releases per 1 000 kilometres or 1 pipe body liquid release per 11 100 kilometres of liquid pipelines.

Pipe Body Liquid Release Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.11 compares the pipe body liquid release frequency for NEB-regulated liquid pipelines to that of reference organizations. It is important when considering this comparison to bear in mind that reporting criteria for liquid releases may vary slightly from organization to organization and as such a perfect comparison is not possible. Reporting requirements for each reference organization are provided in Table A2.3 in Appendix A2. However, in an effort to make the comparison as meaningful as possible, data from PHMSA, CONCAWE and the ERCB have been sorted in order to ensure that only those incidents which meet NEB reporting criteria are represented in Figure 2.11.

Figure 2.11 - Pipe Body Liquid Release Frequency Comparisons*

Figure 2.11 - Pipe Body Liquid Release Frequency Comparisons*

* CONCAWE pipe body liquid release frequency data are not yet available for 2006.

The NEB has shown fewer pipe body liquid releases than reference organizations almost every year since 2000. This may be due, in part, to the higher frequency of pipeline contacts by third parties experienced by PHMSA.

Pipe Body Liquid Release Volume Comparisons

Figure 2.12 shows the liquid release volume over the pipeline length for NEB-regulated pipelines and reference organizations from 2000 to 2006.

The data presented in Figure 2.12 indicate that a single large rupture or break can have a significant impact on the liquid release volume frequency indicator. This is particularly evident for the NEB in 2001 where a large event set this indicator's upper range in excess of 200 m³ per 1 000 kilometres of liquid pipelines.

Figure 2.12 - Pipe Body Liquid Release Volume Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.12 - Pipe Body Liquid Release Volume Frequency Comparisons

Operational Liquid Leaks (Releases from non-pipe body sources)

Operational leaks on liquid pipelines are product leaks associated with pipeline operations and originate from pipeline components such as flanges, valves, pumps and storage tanks. These leaks are usually contained within fenced pipeline facilities and exclude leaks from pipe bodies. Typically, these kinds of leaks are less than 1.5 m³; however, they can be very large.

Table 2.7 shows the number and volume of operational liquid leaks for NEB-regulated liquid pipelines for the seven-year period from 2000 through 2006.

Table 2.7 - Operational Liquid Leaks

Table 2.7 - Operational Liquid Leaks
Year Number of Leaks
(≤1.5 m³)
Number of Leaks
(>1.5 m³)
Total Number
of Leaks
Total Leak Volume
(m³)
2000 42 2 44 102
2001 15 4 19 279
2002 38 9 47 1 184
2003 43 1 44 13
2004 57 5 62 34
2005 48 3 51 1 269
2006 25 7 32 322
* Table 2.6, Figure 2.13, and Table 2.7 all data updated from last year based on further review.

A large liquid leak in 2002 occurred at a pump station (1 075 m³), and a large leak (950 m³) in 2005 occurred at an oil terminal, which resulted in a high total leak volume for those years.

On average, approximately 44 leaks per year are reported on NEB-regulated pipeline systems. Much like pipe body releases, a single large leak from other pipeline components can have a significant impact on total annual leak volume.

No reference organizations publish a liquid leak frequency comparable to that of the NEB. Figure 2.13 shows the liquid leak frequency indicator for NEB-regulated liquid pipelines from 2000 through 2006.

Figure 2.13 - NEB-Regulated Pipelines Operational Liquid Leak Frequency

Figure 2.13 - NEB-Regulated Pipelines Operational Liquid Leak Frequency

The frequency of liquid leaks from non-pipe body sources has shown a seven year average of approximately 3 leaks per 1 000 km of pipeline. In 2006 the frequency reached a five year low at 2.5 down from 3.6 in 2005.

Non-pipeline Liquid Spills

Liquid spills are spills associated with pipeline construction, maintenance and operations on both liquid and gas pipelines. They include small volumes of hydraulic, lubrication, valve operator fluids or equipment fuels, but exclude product leaks from liquid pipeline systems. Table 2.8 shows the volume and combined number of liquid spills both greater than and less than 1.5 m³.

Table 2.8 - Non-product Liquid Spills on NEB-Regulated Liquid and Gas Pipelines

Table 2.8 - Non-product Liquid Spills on NEB-Regulated Liquid and Gas Pipelines
Year Number of Spillss
(≤1.5 m³)
Number of Spills
(>1.5 m³)
Total Number
of Spills
Total Spill Volume
(m³)
2000 227 0 227 16
2001 28 1 29 3
2002 25 0 25 2
2003 48 1 49 5
2004 64 1 65 4
2005 47 1 48 12
2006 125 0 125 3

High levels of construction activity in 2000 caused a significant number of reported spills. Overall, the average volume per spill is small, with the seven-year average being 2.4 m³ per spill.

2.6 Gas Releases and Leaks

NEB-Regulated Gas Pipelines

Pipe Body Gas Releases and Operational Leaks

For the purpose of this report, pipe body gas releases and operational leaks are defined as follows:

  • Pipe body gas releases are the result of pipe body failures and include both ruptures and leaks.
  • Operational gas leaks can occur through equipment including venting from valves and through seepage at flanges through gaskets.

The data presented here do not include the release of gas from planned events, such as venting or blowdowns. All unintended or uncontrolled gas leaks on NEB-regulated pipelines must be reported and there is no minimum reportable volume associated with gas releases or leaks.

The data used to calculate the gas release and leak frequencies for NEB-regulated pipelines are shown in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9 - Gas Releases and Leaks on NEB-Regulated Pipelines

Table 2.9 - Gas Releases and Leaks on NEB-Regulated Pipelines
Year Pipe Body Gas Releases Operational Pipeline Gas Leaks
2000 1 24
2001 1 23
2002 2 11
2003 0 11
2004 4 19
2005 4 18
2006 1 22

Pipe Body Gas Release Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.14 shows the pipe body gas release frequency for NEB-regulated gas pipelines and PHMSA-regulated gas pipelines. The reporting criteria for gas releases vary between the reference organizations. These differences are summarized in Table A2.4 in Appendix A2. In an effort to produce a more meaningful comparison, the PHMSA data were analyzed so that hydrocarbon releases not clearly indicated as originating from the pipe body were removed from the aggregate data.

Figure 2.14 - Pipe Body Gas Release Frequency Comparisons

Figure 2.14 - Pipe Body Gas Release Frequency Comparisons

The seven-year average of the gas pipe body release frequency for NEB-regulated pipelines is approximately 0.07 releases per 1 000 kilometres or one gas release per 14 300 kilometres.

The NEB gas release frequencies are generally lower than the PHMSA frequencies and while the NEB gas release frequency was elevated in 2004 and 2005, in 2006 the frequency decreased to levels comparable to 2000 and 2001 levels.

Operational Gas Leak Frequency

Figure 2.15 shows the gas leak frequency for NEB-regulated gas pipelines from non-pipe body sources.

At a frequency of approximately 0.75 leaks per 1 000 kilometres, operational gas leaks on NEB-regulated gas pipelines occur about 10 times more often than pipe body gas releases as shown in Figure 2.15.

Figure 2.15 - NEB-Regulated Pipelines Operation Gas Leak Frequency

Figure 2.15 - NEB-Regulated Pipelines Operation Gas Leak Frequency

Due to the differences in reporting requirements for gas leaks between the NEB and PHMSA, comparisons between operational gas leak frequencies are not possible. The NEB requires that all gas leaks be reported, whereas PHMSA requires only those resulting in a fatality, hospitalization, or a property loss of more than US$50 000 be reported.

2.7 NEB Reportable Incidents

NEB-regulated companies are legally required to report to the NEB incidents as per section 52.(1) of the OPR-99, which states:

"A company shall immediately notify the Board of any incident relating to the construction, operation or abandonment of its pipeline and shall submit a preliminary and detailed incident report to the Board as soon as is practicable."

The data presented here do not include voluntarily reported incidents. Under OPR-99, NEB-regulated companies must report the following:

  • death or serious personal injury;
  • a significant adverse effect on the environment;
  • an unintended fire or explosion;
  • the unintended or uncontained release of LVP hydrocarbon liquids in excess of 1.5 m³;
  • the unintended or uncontrolled releases of gas or HVP hydrocarbons; and
  • the operation of a pipeline beyond its design limits as determined under CSA Z662, CSA Z276 or any operating limits imposed by the Board.

Figure 2.16 shows all pipeline incidents meeting NEB regulatory reporting requirements by type. A total of 263 incidents were reported from 2000 to 2006 with a seven year average of 38 incidents per year. Gas releases are the most common incident reported each year. This may be a result of the fact that under the OPR-99, all gas releases regardless of volume, whereas only liquid releases larger than 1.5 m³, are reportable.

Figure 2.16 - OPR Incidents by Occurrence Type

Figure 2.16 - OPR Incidents by Occurrence Type

Figure 2.17 shows the average percentage of all reportable pipeline incidents by type from 2000 to 2006. On average, unintended or uncontrolled gas releases account for almost half of all incidents. Again, this may be due to the fact that all gas releases, regardless of volume, are reportable. The next most common incidents are unintended or uncontained releases of LVP hydrocarbon liquids in excess of 1.5 m³ and unintended fires or explosions.

Figure 2.17 - OPR Incidents by Incident Type

Figure 2.17 - OPR Incidents by Incident Type

3. Conclusion

The National Energy Board continuously searches for ways to improve its performance. The sixth annual Focus on Safety and Environment - A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance is one of our safety report cards. Examining the safety, integrity and environmental performance of NEB-regulated pipelines and comparing the results to their past performance and to that of pipelines regulated by similar organizations is just one of the ways the NEB meets its objective to track and regularly report on results and best practices.

Photo: Kim MaddinIn 2006, NEB-regulated pipelines shipped more than $110 billion worth of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products across the country and on to export markets. In fact, energy accounted for 22 per cent of all Canadian goods or services exported in 2006 . The NEB regulates nearly 45,000 km of pipelines and in 2006, only 37 incidents related to pipeline safety, integrity and the environment were reported.

Throughout 2006, many people were employed on the construction, maintenance and operation of NEB-regulated pipelines. Work hours for more than 3,000 full-time equivalent workers were provided to the NEB and considered in this publication. For the ninth year in a row, there were no fatalities on NEB-regulated pipelines.

2006 marked the fourth consecutive year there were no ruptures on NEB-regulated pipelines. Between 1991 and 2002, there was an average of 2.5 ruptures every year. This improvement appears to be directly related to the proactive nature and sophistication of integrity management programs incorporated by pipeline companies after the Board introduced OPR-99 in June 1999.

Although the number of liquid releases greater than 1 500 litres increased slightly in 2006, the total volume of petroleum products involved was very low: approximately 14 times lower than the 2000-2006 average. Reducing ruptures, releases, leaks and spills is an important element in protecting the environment.

While the NEB is proud of this safety and environmental record, it also recognizes that there is room for improvement. In 2006, the number of injuries per year to employees working on pipelines more than doubled from 2005 to 1.5 injuries for every 100 full-time employees. For the first time in seven years, the annual injury frequency for company employees was nearly identical to the annual injury frequency for contractors, which rose to 1.6 injuries for every 100 full-time equivalent contract workers in 2006. Just one year earlier, pipeline contractors were injured approximately 1.9 times more often than a pipeline company's employees.

The Board is understandably concerned with this new trend. Although there are no clear answers to explain the apparent increase in the frequency of workplace injuries, there are a number of contributing factors which may include:

  • High turnover rates in the red-hot pipeline industry;
  • Lack of or inadequate training;
  • Fatigue due to tight construction schedules;
  • Fatigue due to resource issues;
  • Age of worker; and,
  • Level of experience.

Photo: Marc PauzéThe Board will continue to monitor this trend and work with its partners in industry to improve workplace safety.

As the pipeline industry prepares for another busy construction season, the safety performance indicators in this report point to a need for increased vigilance in ensuring that the well developed and documented safety programs within industry are translated into reduced injury frequencies and a safer workplace. The Board will use the performance metrics within this report in developing and prioritizing its future compliance verification plans. Some of the activities undertaken by the NEB to promote safety and environmental protection include:

  • Partnerships with other regulators to enhance stakeholder understanding and awareness of safety and environmental aspects of the pipeline industry;
  • Active participation with industry in areas such as standards development and pipeline research;
  • Leadership roles in the development of content for not-for-profit conferences such as the International Pipeline Conference and the Banff Pipeline Workshop;
  • International collaboration on compliance and regulation such as with the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration;
  • Audits, investigations and inspections; and,
  • Participation in initiatives such as the Canadian Common Ground Alliance designed to increase awareness and promote best practices for excavation and construction near pipelines.

The Board is committed to a risk-based life cycle approach which enables the NEB to focus its resources where they count the most.

Glossary

Glossary
Contractor individual employed by a company which in turn is employed by an NEB-regulated company.
Contractor Fatalities fatalities which occur while a contract worker is involved in activities pursuant to his/her contract with a pipeline company.
Disabling Injury Frequency the number of fatalities plus lost time injuries plus restricted workday injuries multiplied by 200 000 and divided by the corresponding employee, contractor or combined employee and contractor (worker) hours worked.
Employee individual employed directly by the NEB-regulated company.
Employee Fatalities fatalities which occur while an employee is involved in activities associated with their job duties.
Injury Frequency the number of lost time and restricted workday injuries multiplied by 200 000 and divided by the corresponding employee, contractor or worker hours worked.
Lost Time Injury any occupational injury that prevents an employee from reporting for work or from effectively performing all the duties connected with the employee's regular work on any day subsequent to the day on which the injury occurred, whether or not that subsequent day is a working day for the employee (definition of "disabling injury" in Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations Part XV, section 15.1(a))
Non-Pipeline Liquid Spills spills are associated with small volumes of lubrication and hydraulic oils and fuel spilled during pipeline construction, maintenance and gas pipeline operations.
Non-Pipeline Liquid Spills Frequency the number of liquid spills from integral gas pipeline components and the number of liquid spills caused by pipeline construction and maintenance activities multiplied by 1 000 and divided by the combined total kilometres of liquid and gas pipelines.
Operational Gas Leak Frequency the total number of gas leaks caused by components integral to the operation of gas pipelines multiplied by 1 000 and divided by the total kilometres of gas pipelines.
Operational Liquid Leak Frequency the number of liquid leaks caused by components integral to the operation of liquid pipelines multiplied by 1 000 and divided by the total kilometres of liquid pipelines.
Operational Liquid Leaks associated with the operation of pipeline systems and arise from other components such as flanges, valves, compressors and pumps. Typically, liquid leaks are less than 1.5 m³ but, they can be larger.
Performance Indicator a statistic or parameter that, tracked over time, provides information on trends in the condition of a phenomenon.
Pipe Body Gas Release Frequency the number of releases caused by gas pipeline body failure multiplied by 1 000 and divided by the total kilometres of gas pipelines.
Pipe Body Liquid Releases pipe body failures that exceed 1.5 m³ of liquids.
Pipe Body Liquid Release Frequency the number of releases exceeding 1.5 m³ caused by liquid pipeline body failure multiplied by 1 000 and divided by the total kilometres of liquid pipelines.
Pipe Body Liquid Release Volume Frequency the volume released from a liquid pipeline body failure multiplied by 1 000 and divided by the total kilometres of liquid pipelines.
Reportable Incidents
  • Death or serious personal injury; (under the OPR-99):
  • A significant adverse effect on the environment;
  • An unintended fire or explosion;
  • The unintended or uncontained release of low vapour pressure hydrocarbon liquids (LVP) in excess of 1.5 m³;
  • The unintended or uncontrolled releases of gas or high vapour pressure hydrocarbons (HVP); and
  • The operation of a pipeline beyond its design limits as determined under CSA Z662, CSA Z276 or any operating limits imposed by the Board.
Ruptures loss of containment event that immediately impairs the operation of the pipeline (Annex H to CSA Z662-03).
Serious Injury
(under the OPR-99)
includes an injury that results in (a) the fracture of a major bone; (b) the amputation of a body part; (c) the loss of sight in one or both eyes; (d) internal hemorrhage; (e) third degree burns; (f) unconsciousness; or (g) the loss of a body part or function of a body part.
Third Party Fatalities these are fatalities involving persons other than contractors or employees.
Worker refers to the combined data for employees and contractors.

Appendix 1

A1 - Reference Organizations and Data Sources

Organizations chosen for comparative analysis of data within this report have been selected based on their similarities to the NEB. A comparison of the terms used within each reference organization is provided in Appendix A2.

A1.1 Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)

Website: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

Under the Canadian constitution, labour legislation is primarily a provincial responsibility. The federal government, however, administers labour affairs in specific sectors including certain works and industries such as pipelines which have inter-provincial or international character.

The Labour Program of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) is responsible for developing, administering and enforcing legislation and regulations related to the workplace, including the Canada Labour Code Part II - Occupational Health and Safety (CLC Part II).

HRSDC collects, researches and analyses data pertaining to health and safety at all federally regulated workplaces, including those regulated by the NEB.

HRSDC data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicator:

  • Injury Frequency.

Data Sources

Occupational Injuries Among Canadian Federal Jurisdiction Employers, 1998-2002.

Occupational Injuries Among Canadian Federal Jurisdiction Employers, 2001-2005.

A1.2 Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)

Website: Energy Resources Conservation Board

The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of the Government of Alberta. Its mission is to ensure that the discovery, development, and delivery of Alberta's resources takes place in a manner that is fair, responsible, and in the public interest.

The ERCB regulates the safe, responsible, and efficient development of Alberta's energy resources including oil, natural gas, oil sands, coal, and electrical energy.

Regulation is done through four core functions: adjudication and regulation, applications, surveillance and enforcement, and information and knowledge.

ERCB data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicators:

  • Ruptures.

Data Sources

Written correspondence:

Dated 4 April 2003, 20 hydrocarbon liquid releases from crude oil pipelines in 2000 and 24 releases in 2001 and corresponding crude oil release volumes;

Dated 17 December 2003, 13 hydrocarbon liquid releases from crude oil pipelines in 2002 and corresponding crude oil release volumes;

Dated 17 December 2004, 13 hydrocarbon liquid releases from crude oil pipelines in 2003 and corresponding crude oil release volumes;

Dated 31 October 2005, 22 hydrocarbon liquid releases from crude oil pipelines in 2004 and corresponding crude oil release volumes.

Dated 15 January 2007, 24 hydrocarbon liquid releases from crude oil pipelines in 2004 and corresponding crude oil release volumes.

Statistical Series 57 - Field Surveillance Provincial Summary:

Photo: Marc PauzéApril 2001/March 2002, published in July 2002;

January-December 2002, published in May 2003.

January-December 2003, published in April 2004.

Janvier-January-December 2004, published in May 2005.  2004, publié en mai 2005

Statistical Series 99 - EUB Provincial Surveillance and Compliance Summary:

January-December 2005, published in June 2006

A1.3 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)

Website: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents more than 150 member companies and 130 associate members who explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, oil sands, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies produce more than 95 per cent of Canada's natural gas and crude oil. CAPP also has 125 associate members that provide a wide range of services that support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together, these members and associate members are an important part of a $100-billion-a-year national industry that affects the livelihoods of more than half a million Canadians.

CAPP data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicators:

  • Injury Frequency.

Data Sources

2006 Stewardship Progress Report, published by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in January 2007.

A1.4 Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada (PLCAC)

Website: Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada

The Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada (PLCAC) represents contractors in labour relations matters and establishes training courses for the development of Canadian workers in special pipeline construction skills.

PLCAC interests and activities extend to issues such as occupational health and safety, legislative review, pipeline standards and codes and a host of other activities.

PLCAC data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicator:

Injury Frequency.

Data Sources

Mainline Contractor Injury Frequencies, Safety Statistics Page.

A1.5 United States Department of Transport, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration - Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA)

Website: Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration

Photo: Laura RandallThe Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers the Department of Transport's national regulatory program to assure the safe transportation of natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The PHMSA develops regulations and other approaches to risk management to assure safety in design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities.

PHMSA safety jurisdiction over pipelines covers more than 3 000 gathering, transmission, and distribution operators as well as some 52 000 master meter and liquefied natural gas operators who own and/or operate approximately 1.6 million miles of gas pipelines, in addition to over 200 operators and an estimated 155 000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines.

For the purposes of this report, only information on gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines has been used. PHMSA data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicators:

  • Ruptures;
  • Liquid Releases; and
  • Gas Releases.

Data Sources

PHMSA website:

  • Natural Gas Transmission Incident Data - mid-1984 to 2001 and 2002 to present;
  • Hazardous Liquid Accident Data - 2000 to 2006 Statistics

A1.6 United States Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Website: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the principal fact-finding agency for the Federal Government of the United States in the broad field of labor economics and statistics. The BLS is an independent national statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor.

BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today's rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation.

BLS began using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to compile the 2003 Workplace Injuries and Illnesses data. As a result, the classifications used in this report changed slightly from last year and better represents the work activities that occur in relation to pipelines. As such, caution should be taken when comparing to previous years.

BLS data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicator:

  • Injury Frequency.

Data Sources

U.S. Department of Labor website:

  • Table 1, Incidence rates of non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and selected case types, 2000 through 2002 inclusive. Contractor is "Heavy construction, except highway", and employee is "Gas production and distribution";
  • Table 1, Incidence rates of non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and selected case types, 2003 and 2004. Contractor is "2371 Utility System Construction"; and employee is "486 Pipeline Transportation".
  • Table 1, Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by selected industries and case types, 2005. Contractor is "2371 Utility System Construction"; and employee is "486 Pipeline Transportation".
  • Table 1, Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by selected industries and case types, 2006. Contractor is "2371 Utility System Construction"; and employee is "486 Pipeline Transportation".

Lost workday injuries where total lost workday cases involve days away from work, days of restricted work activity or both.

A1.7 European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG)

Website: European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group

In 1982 six European gas transmission system operators took the initiative to gather data on the unintentional releases of gas in their pipeline transmission systems. This co-operation was formalized by the setting up of EGIG (European Gas pipeline Incident data Group). Now EGIG is a co-operation between a group of nine major gas transmission system operators in Western Europe and is the owner of an extensive gas pipeline-incident database.

The creation of this extensive pipeline-incident database (1982) has helped pipeline operators to demonstrate the safety performances of Europe's gas pipelines. This information has helped the pipeline operators to improve safety in their gas pipeline transmission systems.

Considering the number of participants, the extent of the pipeline systems and the exposure period involved (from 1970 onwards for most of the companies), the EGIG database is a valuable and reliable source of information. The regional differences are not taken into account so that the result of the database presents an average of all participating companies.

EGIG data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicators:

  • Ruptures.

Data Sources

3rd EGIG Report, 1970-1997 Gas Pipeline Incidents, Document No. EGIG 98.R.0120 published in December 1998.

5th EGIG Report, 1970-2001 Gas Pipeline Incidents, Document No. EGIG 02.R.0058, published in December 2002.

6th EGIG Report, 1970-2004 Gas Pipeline Incidents, Document No. EGIG 05.R.0002, published in December 2005.

Data published at www.egig.nl (the EGIG website). Mileage interpolated from the incident frequency rate.

A1.8 European Oil Companies Association for Environment, Health and Safety (CONCAWE)

Website: European Oil Companies Association for Environment, Health and Safety

Most oil companies who refine crude oil in Western (OECD) Europe are members of CONCAWE. CONCAWE is founded as an international association with a scientific objective and without profit-making intent. The organization produces sound economic, technical and scientific information.

CONCAWE data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicator:

  • Liquid Releases.

Data Sources

Western European Cross Country Oil Pipelines 30 Year Performance Statistics, Report No. 1/02 published in February 2002, page 48.

Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines - statistical summary of reported spillages - 2001, report no. 1/03, published February 2003.

Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines - statistical summary of reported spillages - 2002, report no. 7/04.

Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines - statistical summary of reported spillages - 2003, Report no. 3/05, published May 2005.

Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines - statistical summary of reported spillages - 2004, Report no. 3/06, published June 2006.

Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines - statistical summary of reported spillages - 2005, Report no. 4/07, published May 2007.

A1.9 International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP)

Website: International Association of Oil and Gas Producers

The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) is a worldwide association of oil and gas companies involved in exploration and production. OGP members include private and state-owned oil and gas companies, national associations and petroleum institutes. OGP's purpose is to:

  • provide information to interested bodies on the oil and gas exploration and production industry;
  • represent member's interests at global and regional regulatory bodies; and
  • develop operating guidelines.

OGP data is presented within this report for comparative purposes for the following performance indicator:

  • Injury Frequency.

Data Sources

Safety Performance of the Global E & P Industry, 2000 by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 6.93/319, published June 2001.

Safety Performance of the Global E & P Industry, 2001 by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 6.59/330, published July 2002.

Safety Performance of the Global E & P Industry, 2002 by the International association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 345, published June 2003.

Safety Performance Indicators 2003, Report No. 353, published in June 2004.

Safety Performance Indicators, 2004, Report No. 367, published in May 2005.

Safety Performance Indicators, 2005, Report No. 379, published in May 2006.

Safety Performance Indicators, 2006, Report No. 391, published in June 2007.

Appendix 2

A2 Reporting Criteria and Injury Definitions

Table A2.1 - Comparison of Reporting Criteria for Ruptures

Table A2.1 - Comparison of Reporting Criteria for Ruptures
Source Reporting Requirements
NEB Rupture

"Loss of containment event that immediately impairs the operation of the pipeline." (per CSA Z662-3, Annex H)
ERCB When a leak or break occurs in a pipeline, the licensee shall immediately cause the Board to be informed of the location of the leak or break.

"Break" means a rupture in any part of a pipeline and "leak" means the escape of substance from a pipeline.
PHMSA Incident:

Gas releases that were associated with a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization, or a total cost of US$50,000 or more.

Loss of 8 or more cubic metres of hazardous liquids or where property damage costs exceed US$50,000. After 7 February 2002, a release of 5 gallons (19 litres) or more.
EGIG Incidents include any unintentional release of gas which occurs on an onshore pipeline operating at greater than 1500 kPa outside of the fenced boundaries of installations and excluding all components except the pipe.

Table A2.2 provides a summary of the 'injury' definitions used by reference organizations.

Table A2.2 - Injury Definitions of Comparative Data Sources

Table A2.2 - Injury Definitions of Comparative Data Sources
Organization Definitions Comment
NEB Under the SPI Initiative:

"Any occupational injury that prevents an employee from reporting for work or from effectively performing all the duties connected with the employee's regular work on any day subsequent to the day on which the injury occurred, whether or not that subsequent day is a working day for the employee." (Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations Part XV, section 15.1(a))

Under the OPR-99:

"serious injury" includes an injury that results in: the fracture of a major bone; the amputation of a body part; the loss of sight in one or both eyes; internal hemorrhage; third degree burns; unconsciousness; or the loss of a body part or function of a body part.
Guidance provided to companies by the NEB: "medical aid where the employee can not return to work the following day regardless of the day of the week or injury".
COGOA Data represents "lost time injuries" which prevent an employee from reporting for work or from effectively performing all the duties connected with the employee's regular work on any day subsequent to the day on which the injury occurred, whether or not that subsequent day is a working day for the employee. The definition is identical to the definition used by the NEB for the SPI Initiative.
HRSDC

Disabling Injury:

"Any occupational injury that:

  1. prevents an employee from reporting for work or from effectively performing all the duties connected with the employee's work on any day subsequent to the day on which the occupational injury occurred, whether or not that subsequent day is a working day for that employee;
  2. results in the loss by an employee of a body member or a part thereof or in a complete loss of the usefulness of a body member or part thereof; or
  3. results in the permanent impairment of a body function of an employee."

Disabling injury incidence:

Disabling plus fatal injuries.

The definition is similar to the combined definition under the NEB OPR-99 and SPI Initiative.
CAPP Any cut, fracture, sprain, amputation, loss of consciousness, etc, which results from an exposure involving a single event in the work environment.

Lost Time injuries - include fatalities, permanent total disabilities and lost workday cases resulting from work-related injuries.

Recordable injuries - include fatalities plus permanent total disability plus lost workday cases plus restricted work cases plus medical treatment cases.

Lost Workday Cases (LWC) - lost workday cases are work-related injuries, which render the injured person temporarily unable to perform any regular job or restricted work activity on any normally scheduled workday after the day on which the injury occurred.

Restricted Work Cases (RWC) - a work-related injury or illness which results in an individual being unable to perform all normally assigned work functions during any scheduled work shift; or being assigned to another job on a temporary or permanent basis after the day of the injury or illness.
CAPP members are primarily upstream oil and gas companies and data may not be directly comparable to pipeline transmission companies.
PLCAC Any work related personal injury or illness that results in time lost from work. Time lost begins on the day subsequent to the day the accident occurs. PLCAC data does not include non-union pipeline contractor data. Mainline construction data should be roughly comparable to contractor data under the SPI Initiative.
BLS Data presented is taken from industry classification for "Heavy construction, except highway - 162" and from "Gas production and distribution - 492" for injuries resulting in "days away from work, days of restricted work activity, or both for the years 2000 to 2002" Industry classifications changed in 2003. Data presented for 2003 to 2005 is taken from industry classification for "Utility System Construction - 2371" and from "Pipeline Transportation - 486" for injuries resulting in "days away from work, days of restricted work activity, or both" . Heavy construction and Utility System construction data should be roughly comparable to NEB contractor data.

Gas production and distribution data and pipeline transportation data should be comparable to NEB company data.
OGP Injury is referred to as a Lost Workday Case (LWDC) and Restricted Workday Case (RWDC). Any work related injury other than a fatal injury which results in a person being unfit for work or severe enough to prevent a person from performing normal duties on any day after the day of occurrence of the occupational injury. "Any day" includes rest days, weekend days, leave days, public holidays or days after ceasing employment.  

Table A2.3 - Comparison of Liquid Release Reporting Criteria

Table A2.3 - Comparison of Liquid Release Reporting Criteria
Source Reporting Requirements
NEB Any unintended or uncontained release of liquid hydrocarbons associated with pipe body failure and a release volume in excess of 1.5 cubic metres.
ERCB When a leak or break occurs in a pipeline, the licensee shall immediately cause the Board to be informed of the location of the leak or break.

"Leak" means the escape of substance from a pipeline.

"Break" means a rupture in any part of a pipeline.
CAPP A pipeline rupture is defined as "any tearing or fracturing of pipeline material, immediately impairing the operation of the pipeline" [CAPP, 2007]

A pipeline leak is defined as "any opening, crack or hole in the pipeline causing some product loss, but not immediately impairing the line's operation" [CAPP, 2007]
PHMSA Loss of 8 or more cubic metres or where property damage costs exceeds $50,000 USD.

After 7 February 2002: a release of 5 gallons (19 litres) or more.
CONCAWE The minimum spill size has been set at 1 m³ for reporting purposes unless there are exceptional serious safety / environmental consequences as a result of a <1m³ spill.

Table A2.4 - Comparison of Gas Release Reporting Criteria

Table A2.4 - Comparison of Gas Release Reporting Criteria
Source Reporting Requirements
NEB Any unintended or uncontrolled release of natural gas.
PHMSA Gas releases associated with a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization, or a total cost of $50,000 (U.S.) or more.
EGIG Any unintentional release of gas which occurs on an onshore pipeline operating at greater than 1500 kPa outside of the fenced boundaries of installations and excluding all components except the pipe.

Apppendix 3

A3 Raw Data

Data for the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 was submitted voluntarily to the Board from companies owning or operating approximately 98% of the total length of pipelines regulated by the NEB under the National Energy Board Act. Companies typically report on all NEB-regulated pipelines systems that they own.

Reporting Companies for 2006:

Reporting Companies for 2006
Alliance Pipeline Ltd.
AltaGas Pipeline Partnership
ARC Resources Ltd.
Berens Energy Ltd.
BP Canada Energy Company
Canadian Montana Pipeline Company
Canadian Natural Resources Limited
Corporation Champion Pipeline
Enbridge Inc.
EnCana Corporation
ExxonMobil Canada Ltd.
Harvest Operations Corp.
Husky Oil Limited
Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.
Montreal Pipe Line Limited
Nexen Inc.
NuVista Energy Ltd.
Omimex Canada Ltd.
Pengrowth Corporation
PennWest Petroleum
Pioneer Natural Resources Canada Inc.
Sierra Production Company
Spectra Energy Gas Transmission
St. Clair Pipelines Inc.
Terasen Gas Inc.
TransCanada PipeLines Limited
Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc.
True Energy Trust
Union Gas Limited
Vector Pipeline Limited Partnership

The length of pipelines reported upon is provided in Table A3.1.

Table A3.1 - NEB-Regulated Pipeline Statistics

Table A3.1 - NEB-Regulated Pipeline Statistics
Year Number of
Kilometres
Reported Upon
Total
Kilometres
2000 39 190 42 919
2001 42 670 42 968
2002 41 555 43 124
2003 42 189 43 252
2004 41 386 43 371
2005 41 270 43 440
2006 43 610 44 500

The raw data used to calculate the injury frequencies of NEB-regulated pipelines is presented in Table A3.2.

Table A3.2 - NEB Injury Frequency Data

Table A3.2 - NEB Injury Frequency Data
Year Contractor
Hours
Employee
Hours
Contractor
Injuries
Employee
Injuries
2000 6 255 390 7 034 954 55 6
2001 1 606 271 4 827 678 40 18
2002 1 357 577 5 103 983 13 4
2003 788 466 4 869 253 12 16
2004 1 573 743 4 722 044 9 12
2005 1 218 350 4 925 620 7 15
2006 2 140 650 3 811 330 28 29

Table A3.2 - NEB Injury Frequency Data
Year Liquid Pipeline Gas Pipeline Total
2000 1 124 735 12 165 609 13 290 344
2001 1 808 947 4 625 003 6 433 950
2002 1 822 637 4 638 923 6 461 560
2003 1 655 670 4 002 049 5 657 719
2004 1 615 406 4 680 381 6 295 787
2005 1 398 649 4 745 321 6 143 969
2006 1 625 244 4 326 736 5 951 979

Table A3.3 provides comparative pipeline length data for the reference organizations cited within this report.

Table A3.3 - Reference Organization Statistics

Table A3.3 - Reference Organization Statistics
Year Organization Kilometres of Gas Pipeline Kilometres of Hydrocarbon Liquid Pipeline Total Reported Kilometres
2000 NEB 25 970 13 220 39 190
2000 ERCB 229 034 16 410 245 444
2000 CAPP not available not available 175 646
2000 PHMSA 524 000 249 020 773 020
2000 EGIG 110 236 not available 110 236
2000 CONCAWE not available 30 800 30 800
         
2001 NEB 26 510 16 170 42 680
2001 ERCB 245 466 16 818 262 284
2001 CAPP not available not available 182 818
2001 PHMSA 479 800 255 060 734 860
2001 EGIG 110 236 not available 110 236
2001 CONCAWE not available 35 575 35 575
         
2002 NEB 26 752 14 803 41 555
2002 ERCB 255 032 17 118 272 150
2002 CAPP not available not available 225 482
2002 PHMSA 526 007 258 409 784 899
2002 EGIG 109 524 not available not available
2002 CONCAWE not available 35 592 35 592
         
2003 NEB 26 943 15 245 42 189
2003 ERCB 268 549 17 391 285 940
2003 CAPP not available not available 266 356
2003 PHMSA 522 020 258 892 780 912
2003 EGIG 114 285 not available not available
2003 CONCAWE not available 36 422 36 422
         
2004 NEB 27 146 14 812 41 958
2004 ERCB 288 388 17 793 306 181
2004 CAPP not available not available 272 221
2004 PHMSA 518 283 270 262 788 545
2004 EGIG 122 168 not available 122 168
2004 CONCAWE not available 35 383 35 383
         
2005 NEB 27 002 14 269 41 270
2005 ERCB 305 274 18 019 323 534
2005 CAPP not available not available 309 391
2005 PHMSA 522 960 266 493 789 452
2005 EGIG not available not available not available
2005 CONCAWE not available not available not available
         
2006 NEB 28 080 15 530 43 610
2006 ERCB 32 1940 18 140 340 086
2006 CAPP not available not available not available
2006 PHMSA 515 108 264 935 780 043
2006 EGIG not available not available not available
2006 CONCAWE not available not available not available

Comparative data is listed by source organization in Table A3.4.

Table A3.4 - Injury Frequency Data
(Number of Injuries per 200 000 Hours Worked)

Table A3.4 - Injury Frequency Data
Year Source* Contractor Injury Frequency Employee Injury Frequency Overall
2000 NEB 176 0.17 0.92
2000 COGOA not available not available 1.06
2000 HRSDC not available 0.51 not available
2000 CAPP 3.13 1.05 2.49
2000 PLCAC 2.88 not available not available
2000 BLS 3.60 3.00 not available
2000 OGP 0.47 0.31 0.41
         
2001 NEB 4.98 0.75 1.80
2001 COGOA not available not available 0.52
2001 HRSDC not available 0.56 not available
2001 CAPP 2.61 0.89 2.06
2001 PLCAC 1.25 not available not available
2001 BLS 3.90 2.50 not available
2001 OGP 0.38 0.31 0.36
         
2002 NEB 1.92 0.16 0.53
2002 COGOA not available not available 0.56
2002 HRSDC not available 0.30 not available
2002 CAPP 1.86 1.02 1.64
2002 PLCAC 1.72 not available not available
2002 BLS 3.50 not available not available
2002 OGP 0.32 0.19 0.28
         
2003 NEB 3.04 0.66 0.99
2003 COGOA not available not available 0.40
2003 HRSDC not available 0.33 not available
2003 CAPP 2.15 1.34 1.80
2003 PLCAC 0.00 not available not available
2003 BLS 3.80 1.00 not available
2003 OGP 0.35 0.17 0.29
         
2004 NEB 1.14 0.51 0.67
2004 COGOA not available not available 0.46
2004 HRSDC not available 0.42 not available
2004 CAPP 1.90 1.00 1.64
2004 PLCAC 0.00 not available not available
2004 BLS 3.20 1.40 not available
2004 OGP 0.31 0.20 0.28
         
2005 NEB 1.15 0.61 0.72
2005 COGOA not available not available 0.54
2005 HRSDC not available 0.32 not available
2005 CAPP 1.74 0.95 1.52
2005 PLCAC 0.00 not available not available
2005 BLS 3.20 0.90 not available
2005 OGP 0.31 0.17 0.27
         
2006 NEB 1.59 1.52 1.55
2006 COGOA not available not available 0.25
2006 HRSDC not available not available not available
2006 CAPP 1.74 0.83 1.48
2006 PLCAC 0.56 not available not available
2006 BLS 3.10 0.90 not available
2006 OGP 0.30 0.19 0.27
* CAPP data is for Total Recordable Injury Frequency and includes fatalities and medical treatment cases, which are not included in the NEB data.
Date modified: