Discussion Paper 7: Emergency Prevention, Preparedness And Response: Tools and Requirements

over 2 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 7th of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about a key part of safety and environmental protection: emergency prevention, preparedness and response for pipelines 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 7: Emergency Prevention, Preparedness And Response: Tools and Requirements

Discussion Questions:

  1. In your opinion, are the existing emergency preparedness and response tools and requirements sufficient? If not, what additional tools or requirements are needed?
  2. What are your views with respect to the absolute liability limits that should apply regardless of whether a pipeline release was the company’s fault (particularly $1 billion for major oil pipeline companies)?
  3. In addition to information the NEB currently makes public about compliance and enforcement, is there additional information that should be made available over the lifecycle of a regulated project? If so, what?
  • Robert Kryszko over 2 years ago
    Discussion Paper # 7 answers to questions in: Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response: Tools & Requirements:1. Yes2. The absolute liability limit should be revisited as well. Major spills can cost well over 1 billion dollars to clean up; therefore, if the company believes that their pipeline is not going to affect the environment, then I suggest the company pay absolute total cost for liability in the: a) cleaning up the spill, b) automatically compensate all Aboriginal/Indian groups in affected area, c) and abandon the project; after the spill is cleaned up and compensation have be made to all Aboriginal/Indian groups and organization. One billion is not much for pipeline/oil companies; therefore, I suggest that the absolute liability must have no limit, and all cost (in case of a spill or otherwise) will be absorbed by the company. There is no price tag on our traditional hunting & fishing grounds, sacred sites, and traditional lands. Once it's gone, it's gone for many generations and may never be the same as it was prior to the company's spill. 3. Yes, over the life cycle of the project additional information; such as, air quality, water quality, and land quality must be measured, recorded, and disseminated to the public on a quarterly bases.
  • Mike Fletcher over 2 years ago
    1. Municipalities should be compensated for the resources required to be prepared for a pipeline incident2. After an incident "costs" must include business interruption or destruction costs. For example if a spill destroys commercial or sport fishing businesses the pipeline operator shall pay market value of all businesses (before the incident) and retrain their workers.3. Past performance of a project applicant shall figure into the approval process. Past performance could include projects inside and outside Canada.
  • Hikerman almost 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.