Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.24 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Pipelines are used to convey large quantities of petroleum and flammable materials from one location to another, for example, from the jetty where petroleum and flammable materials are unloaded off tankers to storage tanks in oil refineries.

Let me first explain how pipelines are laid. This will help Members to better understand the amendments that we are making to the Fire Safety Act (FSA).

Most of the pipelines that convey petroleum and flammable materials are on Jurong Island, while some are on the mainland. Pipelines can run above or underground. When they are above ground, multiple pipelines run together in pipeline corridors, where they are supported on piperacks or pipetracks. Underground sections of pipelines do not lie on any piperack or pipetrack and are either supported by structures, such as concrete slabs, or run through service tunnels.

It is important to ensure the safe conveyance of petroleum and flammable materials and for there to be quick and effective response to any incident involving pipelines. As such, under the current Act, "pipeline owners" have to obtain a licence under the Act. The licensed "pipeline owners" have to adhere to safety standards in the design, construction and maintenance of the pipelines. They also have to ensure that there is regular inspection and maintenance of the pipelines and put in place emergency response plans.

In a pipeline corridor, one party manages the piperacks or pipetracks. However, the multiple pipelines that run through a corridor usually serve different users and premises. As a result, there could be one corridor with multiple pipeline owners managing different pipelines within that corridor. This has posed operational challenges for SCDF on the ground as they have to deal with multiple parties with their own maintenance regimes and emergency response protocols for multiple pipelines within one and the same corridor.

This is not ideal from a safety standpoint as no single party will have oversight and responsibility for the safety of all the pipelines running together in that corridor. More critically, it may not be immediately clear at the onset of an incident, such as a fire or explosion, which licensee is responsible for responding to the incident. This will impact the timeliness and effectiveness of incident response efforts.

To ensure that these pipelines are properly managed, SCDF's intent is to clarify the definition of "pipeline owner" under the Act, so that in the situation where there are multiple pipelines in a pipeline corridor, SCDF will only license one appropriate party for all the pipelines within that corridor. The appropriate licensee should be the owner or lessee of the piperacks or pipetracks, who has overview of the safety of all the pipelines within its corridor.

Madam, this is the main change that the Bill seeks to achieve. The Bill amends part (a) of the definition of "pipeline owner" in section 2(1) of the Act so that the party who owns or leases, and has management and control of the piperack or pipetrack will now be licensed as the "pipeline owner". This will allow SCDF to license the owner of the pipeline corridor as the single licensee responsible for all the pipelines in the corridor.

I earlier mentioned that pipelines can run both above ground and underground. For a pipeline corridor that traverses between two premises, there may be some segments that lie above ground and other segments that lie underground with no piperacks and pipetracks. In such cases, the owner of the pipeline corridor will be licensed for the entire pipeline between the two premises, including the underground segments that lie in between.

Where the pipelines to be licensed run completely underground, there is no piperack or pipetrack. The Bill will, therefore, clarify that part (b) of the definition of "pipeline owner" applies for such cases and the party who owns or leases and uses the pipelines will be licensed as the "pipeline owner".

The Bill also makes a consequential amendment to the definition of "relevant pipeline" under section 2(1) of the Fire Safety Act, to clarify that there may not be a piperack or pipetrack at certain sections of a pipeline.

Mdm Speaker, the amended Fire Safety Act will allow SCDF to better regulate pipelines by licensing only one appropriate party who will ensure the safety and effective incident response for pipelines that run together. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.29 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I support the Bill's intention to appoint one risk owner to ensure the integrity of the entire pipeline corridor, from the point of supply to the point of discharge.

As a regional hub for oil and gas, Singapore is covered with submarine and land lines connecting areas, such as Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island, to the mainland.

Pipelines carrying flammable materials are exposed to high risks, including rupture and oil spillage. Just last month, governors in a few American states declared a state of emergency after a pipeline carrying petroleum ruptured in central Alabama, spilling more than 300,000 gallons of fuel in an ecologically-sensitive area and causing fuel shortages.

This is a reminder that we cannot be complacent and should enact legislative changes before accidents occur.

This Bill will ensure that we have single-piece accountability for the integrity of our pipelines. This will mean more efficient decision-making during emergency responses. The frequent usage of pipelines leads to the reduction of wall thickness, creating higher chances of wall rupture. Thus, in the long-term, the integrity of pipelines would also be more secure if one party is liable to conduct inspections, maintenance, train operations, staff and other such responsibilities.

Madam, I would like to ask a few questions on this Bill.

Firstly, how easy or difficult is it to convert from the current arrangement to the desired single-party arrangement? How would the Ministry choose which party to license? Have we also sought feedback from the companies about these proposed changes?

Secondly, in an arrangement where there are multiple pipes within a pipe network, how would the Ministry define a "pipe corridor"? Would the entire pipe network be considered as a single pipe corridor, meaning there is only one owner, or would it be considered as multiple pipe corridors, meaning that there are a few owners held accountable?

This is an important point to raise because the integrity of the entire pipe network is dependent on the integrity of the weakest pipe, and maintenance of the entire network needs to be consistent. I raise this question simply to seek clarity on the definition in the Bill. I appreciate it is difficult to explain this question in words and, as such, I have provided the Senior Minister of State with a drawing illustrating this point. I also needed that drawing to understand what was written here.

Thirdly, can the Minister share what are the commercial implications of this change?

Madam, these questions notwithstanding, safety is always of utmost importance, and I stand in support of this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.

1.31 pm

Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his hand sketch. Mr Louis Ng asks what the commercial implications of this change might be.

SCDF's policy intent has always been that where there are multiple pipelines that run together in a pipeline corridor, one appropriate party should be licensed as the "pipeline owner". This has largely been achieved since the pipeline licensing regime was put in place through the Fire Safety Act amendments in 2013.

This round of amendments clarifies the definition of "pipeline owner" in the Act, to ensure that the appropriate parties will be licensed. SCDF has been working closely with the "pipeline owners" who will be licensed following these amendments and the necessary measures are already largely in place today. As such, there are unlikely to be significant commercial implications arising from the proposed legislative changes.

Mr Ng also asked about SCDF's licensing approach to a pipeline network with multiple pipelines that branch out from a point of supply to separate destinations – whether the network would be licensed under one party or multiple parties. The answer is: different parts of the pipeline network are owned and managed by different parties and, accordingly, the appropriate licensee for each part will necessarily be different. We want to ensure that where pipelines run together, there is a single party that is accountable for that segment of the pipelines, rather than having different licensees being responsible for different pipelines that, in effect, run parallel to each other and lying side by side. However, where some pipelines branch off into an adjacent corridor owned and managed by another party, then that party is the most appropriate person to be licensed for that segment of pipelines running along his corridor.

Different corridors may, therefore, have different licensees, but every licensee is held to the same standards. Under SCDF's regulatory framework, every "pipeline owner" has to meet SCDF's stipulated safety standards for the maintenance of their pipelines. This ensures that there is both integrity and consistency in the maintenance efforts across the entire pipeline network.

In addition, the licensed "pipeline owners" are also required to put in place comprehensive emergency response plans. When an incident occurs, the respective "pipeline owners" are responsible for the emergency response and mitigation efforts for the segments of pipelines for which they have been licensed. Should an incident occur at the boundary of two adjacent pipeline corridors, SCDF will activate both licensees for immediate emergency response.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.