Safety and Environmental Performance Dashboard - June 2014
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 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.
 Total kms include pipeline that is approved, under construction, operational, deactivated, decommissioned, and pending abandonment.
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.
Figure 1: Total Number of Events Resulting in Reportable Incidents 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 1: Details
- Figure 1 shows the number of events which occurred from 2009 through the first six months of 2014 that resulted in a reportable incident (or incidents). From January through June of 2014 there were 50 events reported under the OPR; 49 events had a single reportable incident and 1 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.
|Year||Total Number of Reportable Incidents|
Figure 2: Number of Incidents by Type, 2013 vs. 2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 2: Details
- Figure 2 compares the number of reportable incidents by type in 2013 to the first half of 2014.
- There were no significant adverse effects incidents in 2013. There were 2 of this incident type in the first half of 2014; one related to a leak of glycol on company property while performing integrity testing on the compressor station glycol lines, and the other involved the loss of 0.06 m³ of lube oil into the Peace River.
- There were no serious injuries or fatalities reported in the first six months of 2014.
- Most reportable incidents do not result in threats to the safety of people or the environment.
|Year||Gas Releases||Fires||Explosions||Serious Injuries||Significant Adverse Effects||Fatalities||Liquid Releases||OBDL|
Figure 3: Number of Serious Injuries 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 3: Details
- There were no serious injuries in the first half of 2014.
Figure 4: Number of Fatalities, 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 4: Details
- There were no fatalities in the first half of 2014.
Figure 5: Number of Operation Beyond Design Limits (OBDL) Incidents, 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 5: Details
- There were two incidents related to operation beyond design limits in the first half of 2014. One was related to electrical problems at a valve site, causing the pipeline to shut down suddenly, and the other involved an over-pressure in a sample cylinder in a company’s manifold sample building.
Figure 6: Number of Fires and Explosions, 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 6: Details
- There were ten reportable fires from January through June. Five of these fires were equipment and electrical-related, two were related to tidiness (i.e., one fire began in a cigarette ash receptacle on company property and another fire resulted from an unextinguished cigarette being placed in a garbage pail) and two were related to lightning strikes. The remaining fire related to a pipeline rupture, which did not result in any injuries or wildlife impacts, but did require nearby residents to be temporarily evacuated as a precaution.
Figure 7: Total Volumes of Liquids Released Vs. Number of Liquid Releases, 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 7: Details
- Six reportable liquid releases occurred in the first half of 2014 (all were crude oil releases totaling 52.25 m³). Two companies reported these six releases and the reasons for the releases are all different.
- Five of the liquid releases were equipment-related: one was due to a failed flex hose, another occurred during maintenance activities and involved a 2” fitting, one involved a failed gasket, one involved a crack at the foot of a valve, and the last incident involved a leak from a tank mixer seal. The sixth release incident was due to a failure to follow procedures while off-loading oil from a truck.
- In five of the six incidents the product released was entirely contained within company property and all of the product is expected to be recovered. In the remaining incident, a light spray of crude oil was found on top of a layer of snow off company property, all of the released product has been recovered and all offsite impacts were cleaned up.
|Year||Total Volume Released (m³)||# of Releases|
Figure 7(a): On/Off Company Property Liquid Releases by Location, 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 7(a): Details
- With the six liquid releases in 2014, all of which occurred on company property, the total number of on-company property releases from 2009 to the end of June 2014 is 32.
- One of the releases involved some crude oil spraying from the company’s property onto the top layer of snow on the land adjacent to the pump station.
|On Company Property||Off Company Property|
Figure 8: Number of Natural Gas and Other High Vapour Pressure Releases, 2009-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 8: Details
- There were 31 reportable natural gas releases from January through June. Of these, 27 were sweet natural gas, 2 were acid gas, 1 was sour gas and 1 was ‘other’ gas.
- One sweet natural gas release was a multiple-consequence event in which a reportable fire also occurred. This relates to the rupture event referred to in Figure 6. One other sweet natural gas release was a rupture event but it did not result in a fire.
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.
Figure 9: Number of UAs by Province, 2013-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 9: Details
- Approximately 42 percent of the UAs reported between January and June of 2014 occurred in British Columbia, 39 percent occurred in Alberta, 10 percent occurred in Ontario, 6 percent in Quebec and 3 percent in Saskatchewan. The UAs in British Columbia included 10 ground disturbances, 2 encroachments and 1 vehicle crossing. The UAs in Alberta included 7 ground disturbances, 3 encroachments and 2 vehicle crossings. The 3 UAs in Ontario were all ground disturbances. One UA in Quebec was a vehicle crossing and the other was a ground disturbance, and the only UA in Saskatchewan was related to ground disturbance.
Figure 10: Number of UAs by Type, 2010-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 10: Details
- The data from January to June shows that ground disturbance continues to be the most prevalent type of UA.
Figure 11: Number of UAs by Violator Type, 2010-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 11: Details
- Consistent with trends from 2010 through 2013, contractors continue to be the leading type of violator through the first half of 2014, followed by landowners and municipalities.
Figure 12: Number of UAs by First-Time Vs. Repeat Violators, 2010-2014 (Jan-Jun)
Figure 12: Details
- The trend in the number of first-time vs. repeat violators continues in the first half of 2014, with more first-time violators than repeat violators.
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: email@example.com. For inquiries, reports or requests on this content, please refer to the NEB’s Contact Us page.
- Date modified: