|
Landowners are living and working
very near pipelines. The following concerns have been raised by
CAPLA relating to safety:
●
The Auditor General’s
September 1998 Report on the NEB
The Auditor General’s Report
states that "in our opinion, post-construction inspection is not
being given the attention it deserves". The Report also notes
that high NEB staff turnover and lack of staff with appropriate
experience could be factors affecting the work of the NEB. CAPLA
will investigate if such conditions do exist. Independent
pipeline inspection is important to CAPLA.
●
Increased Pressures in New
Pipelines
Pipelines with projected operating pressures over 1400 psi concern CAPLA. Even though pipe walls are stated to
withstand such increased pressures, accidents do happen. If a
rupture should occur, it appears to the layman that landowners
near such pipelines would be in an area of increased danger
compared to lower pressure pipelines. Again, CAPLA will
investigate.
●
Thinner-Walled Pipelines in
Rural Areas
New pipelines in rural areas with lower population
densities still receive thinner walled pipelines than urban
areas of higher population densities. CAPLA believes rural
landowners deserve equal protection.
●
Depth of Cover Over Pipelines
Although the standards for oil and gas pipeline systems set by
the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) contain requirements
for depth of cover, CAPLA is concerned that the minimum standard
of cover is not sufficient both from a safety and drainage
perspective and is not being maintained by all pipeline
companies.
A landowner in Ontario was sued by a pipeline company
when a loader basket contractor hired by the landowner ruptured
a pipeline carrying gasoline. The pipeline utility contended
that the landowner was negligent because he did not comply with
Section 18(1) of the Ontario Energy Act which provides that "no
person shall dig, bore, trench, grade, excavate or break ground
with mechanical equipment or explosives without first
ascertaining the location of any pipeline that may be interfered
with".
Most landowners under OEB
jurisdiction are not aware of the details of s.18(1) of the
Ontario Energy Act. You might want to ascertain the depth of
cover on your pipelines if you have any concern.
From the evidence the judge found "as a fact" that the
eight-inch pipeline was only 3" below ground surface at the
rupture site. The judge held that the plaintiff utility company
had actual knowledge that the pipeline had insufficient cover,
and that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole and effective
cause of the damage and dismissed the action.
The gasoline line accident
mentioned above happened in 1987, the decision was released
in 1993. Six years is a long time for a landowner to wait
for resolution of the issue.
●
Binbrook
Crude Oil Pipeline Rupture - September, 2001
On September 29, 2001, an Enbridge crude oil
pipeline ruptured, as a result of corrosion and cracking, in an
agricultural field near Binbrook, Ontario, resulting in oil
contamination of nearly 1.5 acres of productive farmland.
Transportation
Safety Board of Canada's Pipeline Investigation Report on the
incident concluded that the corrosion defect was probably 40-45
percent through wall but was not identified in the 1990 ILI
vendor’s final report and was therefore not repaired at the time.
It further concluded that during the subsequent 11
years, corrosion continued until the wall had thinned to 16 per
cent of its original thickness and the pipe wall could no longer
support the stresses associated with the internal operating
pressure.
Older pipelines may be deteriorating beneath the
ground, and landowners should be concerned by cases like the
Binbrook rupture. For further information on other pipeline
ruptures and occurrences, please see the Links/Documents page and
visit the TSB website. |
