Discussion Paper 6: Safety and Environmental Protection

about 3 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 6th of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about the safety and environmental oversight of facilities regulated by the National Energy Board (NEB).

We look forward to reading your answers to the questions below and any comments you may have after reading the discussion paper below. The deadline to submit comments is March 31, 2017.

Download Discussion Paper 6: Safety and Environmental Protection

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are your views with respect to the existing compliance and enforcement tools available to the NEB for safety and environmental protection?
    1. What are your views as to adherence to these tools?
    2. What are your views as to the current use of these tools to advance risk management and any barriers or remedies that would enhance safety?
    3. What are your views as to the safety and environmental performance reporting that is currently done and areas for improvement?
    4. Can the process by which the NEB evaluates compliance and adherence to conditions be made more efficient? If so, how?
  2. Are there additional initiatives the NEB could undertake to help promote a positive culture for safety and environmental protection?
  3. What are your views on monitoring committees?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
  • PeterR about 3 years ago
    1. Overall: big bullies without a clou. 1.a: because of that civil disobedience is triggered. 1.b A complete overhaul is needed. 1.c Do not apply a "cookie cutter" approach: i.e an accident in Quebec should not trigger an across the board rule. 1.d: same answer: involve the landowners/farmers who have, as specialist, have a very good idea about safety, and, have common sense. 2.Speak to the landowners/farmers AND have a DECENT ANNUAL COMPENSATION to have a feel by the landowners/farmers that they are working together with the pipeline companies as partners and not being snubbed at. 3. vague question; no comment
  • Grant about 3 years ago
    Hello, My comment, the NEB has approved the reverse flow of bituman in the old existing pipe line from Sarnia Ontario to Montreal Quebec and is now in operation. A liquid of unrefined bitumen is abrasive sand, petroleum, and solvents, prepared to help move the product through the pipe to tide water or to refinery. How did this approval by the NEB get completed ? Has this NEB decision been influenced by Pressure from interest groups while disregarding the evidence of deteriorating infrastructure, and environmental concerns, for this region of Canada. If Canada is going to take chances with "Old Infrastructure" and threaten our environment for the sake of expediency then Why should we believe a new version of the old NEB to be anything more than a Committe prepared to passify the Public while their real mandate is to smoothe the way for completion of Canada's oil pipe lines, regardless of public safety, and environmental protection standards.. Grant
  • Simon Fox about 3 years ago
    EA should be removed from NEB mandate and placed in an agency with expertise and knowledge to perform this role. This agency whether ceaa or other should be arms length and independent from whatever the neb is turned into. Also indepefent from political interference, and industry pressure.
  • Mike Fletcher over 3 years ago
    During my discussion of NEB reform with the expert committee in Gatineau, the panel was not sure if input from letters of comment or intervenors would feed into and be addressed in the environmental assessment. It seems obvious to me that this must be the case. In the letter that I have thought about writing for the proposed "Energy East" pipeline I have thought about many environmental issues. Its a reasonable expectation that they must be considered by the environmental assessment.
  • Robert Kryszko over 3 years ago
    Discussion Paper # 6 answers to questions in: Safety and Environmental Protection: 1. Safety and environmental protection are equal, environmental protection keeps the people, animals, fish, air, and water safe from potential life threatening contaminants. Tools within the NEBA must be revisited and safety experts must recommend new compliance and enforcement tools. Tools that are geared towards the safety of animal winter areas; such as deer & moose winter areas, the safety of Indian sacred sites, the safety of Indian traditional land. Remember the animals, fish, and plants cannot speak for themselves; however, the Indians speak for them. That is why we are called the "Protectors of the Land". Safety must not only include people or machinery, it must include the rights of our animals, fish, and plants as well. Projects that can adversely affect the animals way of life or puts the animals in an identified unsafe environment must be refused or re-routed. Proposed energy projects must fulfill the safety/environmental requirement towards the animals, fish, and plants as well. The monitoring committee must be robust to ensure that safety and the environment comes first, and the NEB must assist in promoting safety measures and adherence. 2 & 3. Are answered in question 1.
  • Hikerman over 3 years ago
    It is amazing that nowhere in this document is Risk Assessment or Failure Analysis mentioned. This is the foundation of all advanced Quality Management Systems QS, TS, AS, etc.). Whether it is designing, building or operating a pipeline, the only way to prevent failure is to systematically analyze the plan. The paper is heavy on audits, but that is only effective if the controls being audited actually address all of the potential failures, effectively. I worked on the IPL/Enbridge System for 15 years and now teach a Masters of Engineering course on Preventive Failure Analysis. Pipelines can be dependable, low risk engineered systems, if disciplined systems are followed and enforced.
  • dziga over 3 years ago
    Your stated understanding of the environment is much too limited, not foundational enough. You are not considering the sourcing and the end use of the energy — lets call it what it is — oil — as environmental considerations — thus your bias to the extent of blindness to the true ramifications on the environment of say, the KM pipeline project.