Natural Resources Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'd like a written response to the committee outlining the number of pipeline inspections since 2005; the number of audits since 2005; the number of audits that required follow-up; the number of inspections that required follow-up; any remedial action that was taken in response to these inspections and audits; the costs associated with each audit and inspection; the total amount budgeted for audits and inspections each year since 2005; and—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Are my 15 seconds up?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

I will allow it. Is that it?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

—the number of personnel who worked on inspections and audits each year since 2005.

I can give you that in writing.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Thank you very much, Mr. Regan.

So our witness can provide the committee with answers in writing.

The time for questions and their answers will now be five minutes. We will start with Mrs. Perkins.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for being here and to congratulate you on the work you do that's resulted in the 99.99% safety rating on our pipelines. I know that you need to hear that from us every once in a while, because certainly the work you do is onerous, and we appreciate it.

As we move along, I know that we see different challenges and different opportunities with technology and so on. One of the things that I'm very interested in is whether or not you're proposing with respect to some of these pipelines that they introduce the technology piece into their monitoring, if you will.

For example, there's the Line 9 reversal project. I think it might still be before you; I'm not quite sure where it sits. One of the things they were talking about was having a remote location, I think in Calgary. It would be the area where they would monitor everything from, throughout the entire pipeline system, and they would have the ability to shut down the line where there was any breakage. They would go to the nearest possible valve, shut it down, and then deploy the emergency folks to the site.

That kind of technology is something that's coming along, I guess, and it's relatively new. Where does that fit into your regime of what you do You have so many various areas. Is that part of what you would look at?

[Dr. Robert Steedman]

Thank you very much for that question.

When the National Energy Board is reviewing a facility application, the main requirement is that the board be convinced that the final design and construction operation of the pipeline can be done in a safe way and protects people and the environment. It is up to the company to design and operate the pipeline and to respond promptly and effectively if there are any issues.

Our engineers are fully aware of the available technologies. They're aware of emerging technologies, how reliable emerging technologies may or may not be, and how practical they are to deploy in the field in the systems that we require to be extremely reliable and to respond effectively in the event of incidents.

All the major pipelines do have centralized control rooms. All the systems, valves, and pumps and other associated telemetry for monitoring are all centrally monitored. We're very interested in how those control-room cultures work. There's been some significant learning in recent years. We've been very aggressive in pursuing and confirming through audits that these things work. We are always looking for reliability and safety.

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

I appreciate that answer.

The thing I'm am most interested in is the environmental piece. Is there an optimal distance for these shut-off valves? Is there an optimal distance in your regulations that you ask them to implement near environmentally sensitive areas such as rivers and that sort of thing? I know that there are some that are 17 kilometres away. Is there a move to change that and make sure that they can close them off closer than 17 kilometres?

[Dr. Robert Steedman]

The block valves or sectionalizing valves are a very important part of any pipeline. They are typically the main use. The most most frequent use is to isolate sections of a pipeline during normal operation when maintenance is required, so the pipeline can be emptied, maintained, or repaired if that's necessary.

The best environmental protection is to keep hydrocarbons in the pipe, so the NEB has a very extensive and rigorous prevention regulatory regime, including technical oversight and inspections, audits of management systems, and various kinds of escalating enforcement that's available. That's a huge focus for us, because pipelines need to be built, operated, and maintained in a way that prevents leaks or any kinds of ruptures like that.

The design and placement of block valves is complicated. They're large. They have downsides as well as upsides. In terms of increasing the complexity of the operating system, they may impose—because they're machines—mechanics in the middle of what would normally be a welded piece of pipe. It increases some complexity and stresses, etc. We require—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Thank you, Mr. Steedman. We are past the five minutes now, but hopefully you'll have a chance to continue with that later.

Madam Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here and for the detailed overview you've given us. With that overview, I'm sure you've probably answered more questions than we may have even have thought of.

With the number of pipelines that are either proposed or have been approved—or perhaps folks have even indicated that there's a future for additional pipelines—it's easy to believe that the review process looks the same for each one, yet we know that with each one there are different challenges. How does the NEB develop the criteria when it considers a pipeline project, and what goes into the review of each pipeline?

[Josée Touchette]

As I indicated in my overview, the NEB is a specialized tribunal and relies on a variety of people who have their own specialization. Therefore, each application is considered on its own merits and will be debated on its own merits. Dr. Steedman talked about how terrain is going to affect a certain application and how different conditions, whether it's the weather or the geography, etc., are going to be various considerations. There are all sorts of factors that are taken into account.

I'll turn to Dr. Steedman again to provide you perhaps more detail on what considerations are taken into account.

[Dr. Robert Steedman]

Thank you for the question.

I mentioned earlier the National Energy Board's online filing manual. That's where it all starts. One example of what that filing manual requires is the companies' need to go out to talk to people along the proposed route, typically a corridor that could be up to a kilometre wide. They they need to engage the people who live on that corridor. This often happens years in advance, before the National Energy Board ever sees an application. They will talk to the neighbours. They will talk to aboriginal communities. They will do detailed biotechnical, geological, and other kinds of surveys over the route. The filing manual lays all this out.

In the example of engaging people who may be affected, it requires applicants to do the engagement, to hear what concerns are, and then to tell the panel that is assigned what they did in response to that feedback and how they've improved the design. That's before the application starts.

The remainder of the filing manual has greatly detailed guidance dealing with safety, environmental protection, emergency management and response, the rights and interests of landowners along a pipeline who may be affected, and how their programs will deal with those things through the full life cycle of the pipeline, from the pre-design to design and construction, which is a very busy time, and then for many decades, perhaps, afterwards. It may also include toll and tariff matters related to the financial operation of the pipeline company, etc.

This is all laid out in the filing manual. The filing manual requirements have developed over decades with the National Energy Board. They're the things that the board has learned are central to protecting people, the public, and the environment. They're the things the board needs to know for whether pipelines can be operated in a sustainable and safe way. We need to know that the companies have the capacity to look after the pipes and to respond effectively when there are incidents. We need to know that the pipe will be used and is useful because, after all, pipelines are to move energy from areas of supply to markets.

This very large document lays all that out. The 450 staff at the National Energy Board tend to focus on disciplinary aspects of that, and they all come together in an interdisciplinary way during the review of a project.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

You have 30 seconds.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I know that when someone is interested in intervening or appearing to make an intervention when it comes to a project, they would go online and apply to be an intervenor. Is it at that point that they would see online what criteria will be used to determine whether or not a project will be approved and whether or not they actually do even want to intervene in a given case?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

A brief reply, please.

[Dr. Robert Steedman]

Thank you.

That's initiated by project description, which is a pre-application overview of the project. We require those in order to provide Canadians with enough information to decide whether they will be interested. They need to know roughly where the pipeline will go, what the nature of the pipe is, etc.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Thank you very much, Mr. Steedman and Ms. Black.

Ms. Charlton, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much.

Let me begin by introducing committee members and our panel to Gabrielle Guizzo, who's here with me today from Western University's Women in the House program. Since she has to suffer through my questions, I thought she ought to at least get into the committee Hansard, so pease welcome her to the committee.

I have a bunch of quick questions. Let me start first of all by asking—and just a yes or no answer would be terrific for this—were you consulted on this bill by the government?

[Jonathan Timlin]

We provided technical advice to the government as and when requested.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

You said in your presentation that public interest in your work is actually becoming much more active and lively in recent years. I'm not surprised by that, because I think the public's confidence has really diminished under this government because of the gutting of other environmental regulations. I won't ask you to comment on that; I know you can't.

Today Reuters reported that the government has given you one year to deliver up-to-date guidelines for pipeline companies to improve safety and protect the environment. They've asked you to study construction methods, materials, emergency plans, and new technologies.

I'm sorry, could you call Ms. Perkins to order? She's called me disgusting three times now.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Guy Caron]

Let's try to keep this civil. We have limited time. Ms. Charlton is—

[Pat Perkins, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

No, no, I was just accused of calling somebody something that I did not call them. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not call anybody anything. I was referring to a comment, not a person. Thank you very much.