Safety Performance Portal - June 2015

The safety of Canadians and protection of the environment in the construction, operation and abandonment of pipeline facilities regulated by the NEB are the Board’s top priorities, and have been a part of our mandate since 1959. We hold those we regulate accountable so that the safety of Canadians and the environment is protected.

In 2013, the NEB regulated approximately 73,000[1] kilometres of interprovincial and international pipelines. See a map of the NEB’s regulated pipelines. The safety and environmental performance data and information that follows relates to the NEB’s regulated pipelines.

[1] Total kms include pipeline that is approved, under construction, operational, deactivated, decommissioned, and pending abandonment.

Pipeline Incidents

Under the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR), companies must immediately notify the National Energy Board (NEB) of any incident that relates to the construction, operation or abandonment of a pipeline.

Incident means an occurrence that results in:

  • the death of or serious injury to a person;
  • a significant adverse effect on the environment (referred to below as significant adverse effects);
  • an unintended fire or explosion;
  • an unintended or uncontained release of low vapour pressure hydrocarbons (referred to below as Liquid releases) in excess of 1.5 m³;
  • an unintended or uncontrolled release of gas or high vapour pressure hydrocarbons (referred to below as Gas releases); and,
  • the operation of a pipeline beyond its design limits (OBDL).

To enhance the analysis of the reportable incident data, the NEB has separated serious injuries incidents from fatalities, and unintended fires from unintended explosions.

See a map of reportable OPR incidents (2008 - present)
map of reportable OPR indicents

Dashboard

Figure 1: Total Number of Events Resulting in Reportable Incidents 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 1: Total Number of Events Resulting in Reportable Incidents 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 1: Details
  • Figure 1 shows the number of events which occurred from 2008 through to 30 June 2015 that resulted in a reportable incident (or incidents).
  • For the first six months of 2015, there were 42 events reported under the OPR; 41 events had a single reportable incident and one event had multiple reportable incidents.
  • An event resulting in both a fire and a serious injury is an example of an event with multiple reportable incidents. Figure 2 breaks out each of these incident types by year.
Table 1: Total Number of Events Resulting in Reportable Incidents 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Year Single Reportable Incident Event Multiple Reportable Incident Event Total Events
2008 50 0 50
2009 78 5 73
2010 108 2 110
2011 97 2 99
2012 150 5 155
2013 117 4 121
2014 72 1 73
Jan-Jun 2015 41 1 42

Figure 2: Number of Incidents by Type, 14 vs. Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 2: Number of Incidents by Type, 14 vs. Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 2: Details
  • Figure 2 compares the number of reportable incidents by type in 2014 with the number of reportable incidents for January - June 2015. Subsequent figures provide information on the different incident types.
  • With respect to significant adverse effects on the environment, one incident was reported in the first six months of 2015. The incident involved the unexpected liquid release from a line that had been isolated for the purposes of installing new equipment.
  • Most reportable incidents do not result in threats to the safety of people or the environment.
Table 2: Number of Incidents by Type, 14 vs. Jan-Jun 2015
Year Gas Releases Fires Explosions Serious Injuries Significant Adverse Effects Fatalities Liquid Releases OBDL
2012 71 35 7 9 0 0 2 37
2013 55 15 0 2 0 1 10 42
2014 43 16 0 2 2 0 7 4
Jan-Jun 2015 19 11 1 1 1 0 3 6

Figure 3: Number of Serious Injuries 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 3: Number of Serious Injuries 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 3: Details
  • There was one serious injury in the first six months of 2015. The incident occurred when a worker was clearing an access road and slipped, which resulted in a broken forearm. The injury reported on the previous Dashboard update was found not to be a serious injury after further analysis.
Table 3: Figure 3: Number of Serious Injuries 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Year Serious Injuries
2008 3
2009 5
2010 1
2011 1
2012 9
2013 2
2014 2
Jan-Jun 2015 1

Figure 4: Number of Fatalities, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 4: Number of Fatalities, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 4: Details
  • There were no fatalities in the first six months of 2015.
Table 4: Number of Fatalities, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Year Fatalities
2008 2
2009 0
2010 0
2011 3
2012 0
2013 1
2014 0
Jan-Jun 2015 0

Figure 5: Number of Operation Beyond Design Limits (OBDL) Incidents, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 5: Number of Operation Beyond Design Limits (OBDL) Incidents, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 5: Details
  • There have been six incidents related to OBDL so far in 2015, as follows:
    • Two were related to the testing of newly installed equipment at a station, which caused the pipelines to shut down and lead to an over-pressure in nearby meter stations;
    • Three involved over-pressure that occurred when thermal expansion caused an increase in pressure in the pipeline, and either the thermal relief valve failed to open, or the relief valve didn’t relieve the pressure quickly enough to avoid exceeding the line’s limits; and,
    • One occurred when a pipeline was started against a closed valve and the relief valve failed to open, setting off an alarm in the Control Centre.
Table 5: Number of Operation Beyond Design Limits (OBDL) Incidents, 2008 - Jan-Jun 201
Year Total
2008 0
2009 5
2010 25
2011 6
2012 37
2013 42
2014 4
Jan-Jun 2015 6

Figure 6: Number of Fires and Explosions, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 6: Number of Fires and Explosions, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 6: Details
  • Eleven fires and one explosion have been reported so far in 2015, as follows:
    • Six fires occurred during welding/cutting work;
    • Two electrical fires occurred in equipment, and both fires were contained within the equipment’s electrical housing;
    • One fire occurred when a machine was started in an area where a vent line was expelling fumes;
    • One grass fire occurred when a third party struck a power pole near a right of way;
    • One fire occurred in the pump and hose of a vacuum truck which was pulling vapours away from a barrel; and,
    • An explosion happened in an electrical switchgear room when attempting to start a pipeline.
Table 6: Number of Fires and Explosions, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Year Fire Explosion
2008 9 0
2009 14 2
2010 13 1
2011 22 0
2012 35 7
2013 15 0
2014 16 0
Jan-Jun 2015 11 1

Figure 7: Total Volumes of Liquids Released Vs. Number of Liquid Releases, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 7: Total Volumes of Liquids Released Vs. Number of Liquid Releases, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 7: Details
  • In the first six months of 2015, three reportable liquid release occurred as follows:
    • A leak overflowed the secondary containment around a valve and spilled 1.5 m³ of crude oil which did not leave company property;
    • A leak from a pump spilled 2.0 m³ of lube oil which did not leave company property; and,
    • A leak totaling 16.0 m³ of crude oil occurred from a booster pump. Of this volume, 15.0 m³ was contained by the secondary containment around the pump, and 1.0 m³ spilled onto adjacent soil affecting an area of 10m x 10m. Vacuum trucks were used to assist with the clean-up and restoration of the site.
Table 7: Total Volumes of Liquids Released Vs. Number of Liquid Releases, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Year Total Volume Released (m³) # of Releases
2008 188.4 9
2009 495.05 7
2010 337.60 7
2011 284.60 6
2012 97.44 2
2013 58.34 10
2014 234.85 7
Jan-Jun 2015 19.5 3

Figure 7(a): On/Off Company Property Liquid Releases by Location, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 7(a): On/Off Company Property Liquid Releases by Location, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 7(a): Details
  • Between 2008 and June 2015, there have been a total of five liquid releases off company property.
  • Two of the three liquid releases which were reported in the first six months of 2015 were entirely contained within company property.
Table 7(a): On/Off Company Property Liquid Releases by Location, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
On Company Property Off Company Property
46 5

Figure 8: Number of Natural Gas and Other High Vapour Pressure Releases, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 8: Number of Natural Gas and Other High Vapour Pressure Releases, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 8: Details
  • There were 19 reportable natural gas and other high vapour pressure releases in the first six months of 2015. Of these, 13 were sweet natural gas, two were natural gas liquids, one was mixed high vapour pressure hydrocarbons, one was sour natural gas, one was propane and one was fuel gas.
Table 8: Number of Natural Gas and Other High Vapour Pressure Releases, 2008 - Jan-Jun 2015
Year Total
2008 24
2009 51
2010 63
2011 63
2012 71
2013 55
2014 43
Jan-Jun 2015 19

Please note that ruptures are a type of unintended or uncontrolled liquid or gas release incident. For more detailed information on ruptures, please refer to the Pipeline Ruptures section of the NEB’s website.

Unauthorized Activities

Figure 9: Number of UAs by Province, 2014 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 9: Number of UAs by Province, 2014 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 9: Details
  • The 18 UAs in British Columbia included 15 ground disturbances, 2 encroachments and 1 vehicle crossing. The 17 UAs in Alberta included 11 ground disturbances, 4 encroachments and 2 vehicle crossings. The 13 UAs in Ontario were all ground disturbances. The 3 UAs in Québec included 2 ground disturbances and 1 encroachment. There was one unauthorized vehicle crossing in Saskatchewan and one ground disturbance in Manitoba.
Table 9: Number of UAs by Province, 2014 - Jan-Jun 2015
Province 2014 2015
Alberta 30 17
British Columbia 59 18
Manitoba 5 1
New Brunswick 0 4
Nova Scotia 1 0
Ontario 16 13
Quebec 18 3
Saskatchewan 7 1

Figure 10: Number of UAs by Type, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 10: Number of UAs by Type, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 10: Details
  • The data so far in 2015 shows that ground disturbance continues to be the most prevalent type of UA.
Table 10: Number of UAs by Type, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015
  2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Jan-Jun 2015
Ground Disturbance 86 61 122 97 111 44
Encroachment 12 7 12 9 13 7
Vehicle Crossing 6 4 10 7 12 6

Figure 11: Number of UAs by Violator Type, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 11: Number of UAs by Violator Type, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 11: Details
  • Consistent with trends from 2010 through 2014, contractors continue to be the leading type of violator so far in 2015, followed by landowners and municipalities
Table 11: Number of UAs by Violator Type, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015
  2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Jan-Jun 2015
Contractor 62 41 78 70 82 28
Landowner 37 20 51 34 30 22
Municipality 4 11 15 9 18 4
Unknown 0 0 0 0 6 3

Figure 12: Number of UAs by First-Time Vs. Repeat Violators, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015

Figure 12: Number of UAs by First-Time Vs. Repeat Violators, 2010 - Jan-Jun 2015
Figure 12: Details
  • The trend in the number of first-time vs. repeat violators continued in the first six months of 2015, with more first-time violators than repeat violators.
Table 12: Number of UAs by First-Time Vs. Repeat Violators, 2010 - Jan-Jun 201
  2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Jan-Jun 2015
First Time 86 58 106 109 107 51
Repeat 10 7 22 15 29 6

Please note: The incident data shown represents a single point in time. As investigations are completed for open incidents, or as new information becomes available, the incident record is updated and may change certain aspects of the incident record including whether the incident remains reportable under the applicable regulations. Accordingly, the incident data shown is subject to change.

Your comments on the information presented on the Safety and Environmental Performance Dashboard are important to us. Please send any feedback on the content of this page to: dashboard@neb-one-gc.ca. For inquiries, reports or requests on this content, please refer to the NEB’s Contact Us page.

Date modified: