Safety Context
The safety and risks of pipelines can be looked at from the overall safety record of pipelines, the risks and consequences of a pipeline failure and the safety behaviors of the pipeline operators and the municipalities that the pipelines run through.
Or more simply put:
- “Are Pipelines Safe”
- “How Dangerous is the Stuff in the Pipe”
- “Is Someone Looking Out for You”.
Much of the public attention to Enbridge’s proposal to reverse the direction and increase the operating pressure of it’s existing “Line 9” pipeline is only indirectly related to the safety of this request. The discussion, specifically the opposition, is focused on the material that will be handled – oil from the “Tar Sands”. Here we hope to provide some objective information, balancing the propaganda from both sides of the issue.
Are Pipelines Safe
10 year average of ruptures of pipelines carrying liquids is 0.1 ruptures per 1000 km of pipeline (NEB, 2009). What this means for the Jane-Finch community, which has 6 pipelines in the utility corridor, is roughly 0.00318 incidents / year or 1 incident every 314 years. If you were to live near the pipeline for a 75 year lifetime, this is a 21% chance of a leak in your lifetime. Also from the 10 year average, only a third of the leaks are of an amount that would pose even a potentially life-threatening amount, reducing the chance of being substantially affected by a pipeline leak or rupture to near 7%.
Compared to other methods of transporting oil and gas, such as rail lines and tanker trucks, pipelines are much safer. Though, how safe must they be? The National Energy Board (NEB) requires that pipeline companies comply with pipeline integrity testing and monitoring requirements, API Standard 1160, “Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines”. These requirements include a variety of different methods for checking on how well the pipelines are aging. The primary method is “in-line inspection” where they put equipment inside the pipeline that detects flaws in the pipe. The results of the in-line tests are reviewed by people, and they identify areas that need immediate repair and other areas that need to be excavated and inspected more closely. Enbridge has a video that explains the process here.
How Dangerous is the Stuff in the Pipe
During an informal discussion in class about bitumen (aka Tar Sands or Oil Sands) there was a general feeling that it is toxic, poisonous and unsafe to handle. The reality is that the risk is similar to holding a piece of coal: don’t eat it. Unrefined bitumen is not in the pipelines – it is far too solid to flow through a pipe. What is transported in the pipelines include: processed bitumen in the form of dilbit, heavy crude oil, light crude oil, final products (such as gasoline or diesel), and natural gas.
The danger of the substance can be assessed in terms of danger to the environment and to people. A rule of thumb is that “lighter” petrochemicals are more dangerous to people, due mainly to their more explosive characteristics. All pipeline rupture fatalities in Canada happened due to natural gas line ruptures, none from liquid line ruptures. Liquids such as gasoline and crude oil will burn, and under the right conditions may explode, but it is much rarer. The danger to the environment is at its highest when the petrochemicals get into a body of water. The oil can make the water undrinkable and can also kill birds, other wildlife and vegetation.
Diluted bitumen (dilbit) has attracted specific attention, questioning its safety for transportation in pipelines. The concerns are whether it creates additional corrosion risk to the pipeline; with higher sulphur content, increased sand particulate and higher operating temperature being identified as risks. None of these claims have been validated, and reliable organizations have refuted these claims. Though the following article on diluted bitumen is published by the Association of Oil Pipelines, the organizations they are referencing are world leaders in scientific and engineering research and certification. DilBit FAQ. Dilbit behaves, inside the pipeline, like other crude oils.
Dilbit has a different risk profile than conventional crude oil both in terms of its adverse impacts on human health (both chronic and acute, upon exposure to chemicals in dilbit) and environmental cleanup (see InsideClimate’s article for a primer). However, as the final decision – whether to reverse Line 9B, to increase its capacity and to allow it to ship dilbit – rests with the NEB, it is currently premature to speculate on dilbit as a whole. Should Enbridge get the OK to ship dilbit, the following are examples of questions someone might be interested in asking about the substance:
- Will dilbit flow at ambient temperature(s) in a river or creek in the GTA?
- If dilbit does not sink immediately, how long would it take to do so?
- Will wave action and/or the presence of riverine sediment increase, decrease or have no effect on the susceptibility of dilbit sinking?
- Should dilbit be spilled (worst case scenario) from Link 9B, based on (1) and (2) what would you recommend to emergency personnel for how the spill should be handled?
Is Someone Looking Out for You
Pipelines that cross provincial boundaries, such as Enbridge’s Line 9, are regulated by the National Energy Board. Their mandate includes approvals of new pipelines and modifications to existing ones. They also require that pipeline operators report whenever there is an “incident” with their equipment.
“Incident: The NEB has very specific criteria for what constitutes a pipeline incident and thus is considered reportable to the regulator. It includes:
- a death or serious injury of a person.
- a significant adverse effect on the environment.
- an unintended fire or explosion, and unintended/uncontained release of low vapour pressure hydrocarbons (liquids, like oil or gasoline) in excess of 1.5 cubic metres (1,500 litres).
- any unintended/uncontrolled release of gas or high vapour pressure hydrocarbon.
- operation of a pipeline beyond its design limits.”
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/pplnncdntgrprtng/pplnncdts/pplnncdts-eng.html
Figure 1: Reportable HVP and Gas Releases from NEB-Regulated Pipeline Operation
The CBC mapped the locations and sizes of reported releases based on the incident reports that were submitted to the NEB. An issue identified by the CBC is that the incident reports do not always include information about what followup occurred to ensure the issue would not occur again. They also had to fill in and correct inconsistencies and missing information in many of the records.
We further refined the data and have another map, where you can explore the releases by location, duration, volume and other criteria. Clicking on one of the markers allows you to view the NEB record. Pipeline Releases
Bill C-38 is widely criticized for the reductions in environmental oversight that were included, but it also increased the ability of the NEB to hold pipeline operators accountable through fines and penalties. “With the passing of the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the NEB was provided with authority to establish a system of Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) through regulations to promote compliance with the NEB Act.” link
As mentioned earlier, API Standard 1160, “Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines” specifies how the pipeline operators must monitor their pipelines. The NEB and the pipeline operators are working to prevent leaks and ruptures, though some view the efforts as insufficient. A widely publicized critique, submitted to the NEB hearings is the report by Accufacts, “Report on Pipeline Safety for Enbridge’s Line 9B Application to NEB“ written by Richard Kuprewicz. The core of his argument is that current in-line inspection equipment can not properly detect a specific, and common, type of weakness in pipelines. These “crack fields” of stress corrosion cracks (SCC) are not individually a threat, but when a group are located near each other they undermine the integrity of the pipe. A significant second concern is that by introducing heavy crude as one of the products that can be transported the magnitude and frequency of pressure changes in the pipe will increase. These variations in pipe pressure are what causes stress corrosion cracks to get worse.
At a more local scale, there are concerns that local authorities are not prepared for a major pipeline leak. The City of Toronto fire department requested additional information from Enbridge about emergency preparedness requirements at the recent NEB hearing. Local fire departments are trained to handle fires at petroleum storage facilities, but the lack of preparedness of the local authorities at the Kalamazoo spill demonstrates that more can and should be done.
References:
NEB (National Energy Board). 2009. Focus on Safety and Environment – A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance – Summary – 2000-2009. Retrieved from http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/sftyprfrmncndctr/fcsnsfty/2011/fcsnsftysmmr2000_2009-eng.html
Toronto Pipelines 