Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project NEB Hearing Order OH-001-2014 Responses to Information Request from Neil Syme
1.1 Transportation
Reference:
A3SOR1; ref info from NEB file OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013 02 info request letter dated 15 April 2014 Application Volume 2, Project Overview, Economics and General Information, Appendix A-Direct Written Evidence of Steven J. Kelly, IHS Global Canada Limited:
1) Figure A-9-Western Canadian Supply for Pipeline Export vs. Pipeline Capacity, PDF, page 48 of 230
11) PDF page 48 of 230, lines 16 to 18
Preamble:
- references address a surplus capacity of the pipeline.
- we have been told by Kinder Morgan ("KM") that the 3 docks are needed to start up all at the same time because of their "performance model" it says on page 48 of 238 that they will not be using full capacity until 2030. KM have told me in April 2014 that they have to build all 3 docks now and have them running before they shut down the existing dock for demolishing. This, KM says, sets the design parameters and they have used this on the design as submitted.
- in the proposed dock design, 2 of the 3 ships and loading berths would be located in front of my Westridge neighbourhood in full view.
Request: a) justify why you need 3 berths at this time; it may be possible that 2 berths is all KM needs at this time. This may allow a more amicable ship location to be considered for our neighbourhood. b) how many ships per month do you forecast from 2019 thru to full capacity? c) how long does it take to receive, load, discharge a ship using the 30" pipe? d) what is the percentage of usage KM expects of for the third dock in 2019 and 2030?
Response: a) In response to Mr. Syme’s preamble above Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) offers the following information:
Page 1 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
Trans Mountain understands that the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project is of significant concern to Mr. Syme and his Westridge neighbours. Since 2012, the Project team has met multiple times with the Westridge neighbours and is committed to ongoing dialogue to understand and seek opportunities to address their concerns where practical within the constraints of the proposed Westridge Terminal design concept.
Based in large part on feedback from the Westridge neighbours, the proposed pipeline corridor identified in the Application is now an alternate pipeline corridor. Trans Mountain is now pursuing a proposed revised pipeline corridor through Burnaby Mountain that would avoid the Westridge neighbourhood.
Since 2013, Trans Mountain has been in ongoing communication with the residents on Northcliffe Crescent in Burnaby through in-person meetings, email, telephone calls, and video conference about the proposed project.
Through the various meetings and communications Trans Mountain has had with the Symes and their neighbours, Trans Mountain understands there are concerns specifically regarding the location of the proposed pipeline corridor and the location and design of the Westridge Marine terminal and dock facilities. In response to their expressed concerns, Trans Mountain adopted a proposed pipeline corridor that is routed through Burnaby Mountain. Details of that corridor are included within the response to NEB IR No. 1.40. Respecting their concerns about the Westridge Marine terminal and dock facilities, Trans Mountain has been working with Project marine engineers to design a facility that would reduce the impact to Northcliffe residents, while at the same time addressing the other design requirements the Project is required to meet. More specifically, the objectives of the development of the dock complex layout can be found in Section 3.4.4.1.4 of Volume 4A. These include:
Provide the highest level of navigational safety, both for vessels berthing at Westridge Marine Terminal and for other vessels transiting the inlet or at one of the four anchorages nearby; Provide three Aframax capable berths, allowing capacity for vessels to wait for cargo or transit windows and reduce pressure on the anchorages (and the number of vessel movements); Allow the existing dock to remain in service during the construction of the new dock complex, and specifically until the new Berth 1 can be commissioned; Minimize the overall footprint and the impact to community views; and Eliminate deep-water dredging and reduce the amount of dredging for the foreshore expansion.
In Response to the Request
If the Project is approved, Trans Mountain will be obligated to provide 93,480 m3/d (588,000 bbl/d) service to committed shippers (by contract) and 5,880 m3/d (37,000 bbl/d) to spot shippers (by commitments to the National Energy Board), for a total of 83,470 m3/d (625,000 bbl/d) at Westridge Marine Terminal. Whether this capacity is used by shippers or not is not in the control of Trans Mountain so
Page 2 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
Westridge Marine Terminal must be ready to load these amounts from the time the pipeline and facilities are officially declared to be in-service, anticipated at the end of 2017. Trans Mountain’s technical analysis shows that berth utilization will average about 75 per cent. Theoretically, if two berths were to be used, the utilizations would exceed 100 per cent, which is not actually possible. This includes the time for vessels to approach and clear the berths, which will effectively tie them up. The technical analysis also shows that about 45 per cent of the time three berths will be in use or have vessels approaching or clearing. The utilization percentages may change in practice depending on the utilization of anchorages but not enough to allow two berths to be sufficient. b) Trans Mountain cannot speculate on whether the contracted shippers will use their contracted capacity at Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT), divert some of their contracted volumes to land destinations, or sell their capacity to land shippers, all of which is possible to some extent. Trans Mountain cannot speculate on whether spot shipments will occur. Trans Mountain also cannot speculate on what the size (capacity) variations may be within the vessel classes. This makes forecasting of vessel numbers uncertain. As indicated in Section 3.4.4.1.2, Volume 4A of the Facilities Application, WMT will be designed to handle the equivalent of 34 Aframax class vessels per month (to meet Trans Mountain’s contractual and spot obligations), plus a small number of barges and jet fuel deliveries. c) Subject to approval and upon completion of the proposed expansion of Westridge Marine Terminal, it will take 24 hours or less to load an Aframax class vessel once the loading arms have been connected to the vessel (compared to 30-36 hours it currently takes). The loading rate is discussed in Section 3.4.4.7.2, Volume 4A of the Facilities Application. The majority of the cargoes are anticipated to be smaller than the 106,500 m3 (670,000 bbl) used in the calculation, so many loadings could take as little as 20 hours. It will take about three hours for a vessel to dock and prepare for loading and about three hours for a vessel to complete departure procedures and depart. However, to reduce the pressure on the anchorages, vessels may be allowed to arrive early after transit through Second Narrows or to wait at the berth for appropriate Second Narrows transit conditions. d) See the responses to your requests, Syme N IR No. 1.1a and Syme N IR No. 1.1b. It is likely that if Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT) is operating at or close to its full design capacity, the berths will be used approximately equally, with some preference for Berth 2 and Berth 3 (the outside berths), especially for the larger vessels. If WMT is operating at somewhat below its design capacity, it is likely that the utilization of Berth 1 will drop well below that of Berth 2 and Berth 3. However, it is impossible to predict berth utilization definitively without some actual operational experience with three berths.
Page 3 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
1.2 Markets
Reference:
A3SOR1
Preamble:
- the reference states that overall demand for crude is forecasted to decrease.
- if the facility is to start with a lesser capacity it would seem prudent to have a 2-berth terminal at this time which would allow more design options that would allow lesser impact of the residents of Westridge. If there actually is a lower demand for the product in the future it could stay as a 2-berth facility.
- the existing dock could stay in operation for the low volume of barge jet fuel unloading giving an added oil throughput buffer. It should be noted that the existing dock had an upgrade about 5 years ago. Decreasing the construction would result in less neighbourhood disruption and ghg emissions from construction.
Request: a) Does KM have actual guaranteed oil contracts for the duration?
Response: a) Yes. Binding contracts totalling 707,500 barrels per day were signed by thirteen companies for terms of 15 and 20 years.
Page 4 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
1.3 Marine and ghg emissions
Reference:
A3S4J7
Preamble:
- the reference estimates increased emissions from marine traffic; why haven't port Metro-Vancouver been proactive regarding ship emissions and noise levels when they support a green policy for the port?
- KM have produced an emissions study which shows how the emissions will increase due to a 425% increase in tanker traffic.
Request: a) Why is KM not insisting that ships welcomed at their facility must be equipped with the latest technologies? b) Why is KM not insisting shore power to the ships eliminates at ship generator idling to lessen emissions and noise? c) Why is KM not insisting biodiesel fuels for the ships and tugs to lessen the emissions? d) In neighbourhood discussions KM has indicated that only 5% of the ships have shore power connections, our environment needs to be treated with the respect of innovative leadership, is 5% of ships seen as being respectful to the environment? e) The tanker traffic is to increase 425% but the KM study shows only a 200% increase on carbon dioxides, please explain. f) KM have produced an emissions' study which shows how the emissions will increase; please submit a study showing how KM can substantially reduce emissions.
Response: a) Ships are only accepted at Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT) if they meet the requirements of the Tanker Acceptance Standards (NEB IR No. 1.59a-Attachment1). Trans Mountain’s due diligence during the tanker acceptance process ensures that only modern tankers that meet all current international and national rules and regulations as to their construction and equipment, are well maintained, and are operated to best industry operating practices, call and load at WMT. b) As a measure to help reduce and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships in port, a number of ports around the world, including Port Metro Vancouver, provide the ability for ships fitted with special high voltage electrical power connectors to connect to shore power during their time alongside a berth. Trans Mountain has checked with International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO), whose members control over 3,000 tankers, and was advised that there are virtually no tankers
Page 5 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
in the global tanker fleet equipped to connect with shore power due to certain safety concerns, such as the use of high voltage electrical connectors on the dock and outside protected areas of the tankers that are carrying volatile cargoes.
Westridge Marine Terminal is being designed with the ability to retro-fit shore power facilities for tankers, should conditions change in future. c) Recent changes to bunker fuel regulations require all vessels calling Canada and the US to operate on distillate marine fuels instead of residual marine fuels. The tugs in Port Metro Vancouver are governed by the same regulations. Starting in 2015, the bunker regulations will require these vessels to operate using higher standard fuels, which will help to lessen the emissions from ships in Port Metro Vancouver. Regarding the use of biodiesel fuels, it is not currently available as an acceptable marine fuel because of its affinity to water, cold flow properties and the high oxygen content. Section 5.4 of ISO 8217:2012 describes the general requirements for marine fuel oil standard, and is shown below:
d) Please see response to your request, Syme N IR No. 1.3b. e) The 201 per cent increase in marine GHG emissions in Air Quality Regional Study Area (RSA) indicated in Table 6.1 of Section 8B-3 of Volume 8B (Marine Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Transportation Technical Report [December 2013]) refers to the
increase in the annual CO2e emissions from Westridge Marine Terminal relative to the marine GHG emissions in the marine RSA. Specifically, the 201 per cent increase in GHG marine emissions relates to the number of Aframax class vessels, increasing from five to thirty-four tankers per month. f) Emissions management is embedded in the design of the Project. For example, with respect to the selection of technology at facilities, Trans Mountain will recognize a
Page 6 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
reduction in GHG emissions at the Westridge Marine Terminal as a result of the Project. Trans Mountain is proposing to replace the existing vapour combustion unit (VCU) with two new vapour recovery units (VRUs) to address the issue of the increase in tankers loading at the Westridge Marine Terminal and the associated increase in fugitive emissions of the tankers while at berth. Currently, 90 per cent of the fugitive emissions from tankers at berth are captured and destroyed in a VCU at Westridge Marine Terminal, which accounts for a substantial source of GHG and air emissions during operations at the Westridge Marine Terminal. Once the VCU is replaced with the new VRU, which, instead of combusting the vapours, captures and re-injects the vapours back into the tanker, GHG and air emissions at Westridge Marine Terminal are predicted to decrease substantially. This change in technology at Westridge Marine Terminal is predicted to contribute to a reduction of 0.05 per cent of British Columbia’s total annual GHG emissions.
Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) (i.e., as the operator of the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline System to which the Project would be integrated) will continue to complete a GHG inventory on an annual basis according to the requirements of the Kinder Morgan Environmental Manual, 2.1 Environmental Standards, Section 3.0 Air Quality.
Since 2000, Trans Mountain, operating as KMC since 2005, has implemented GHG emissions reductions by upgrading technology at its existing facilities to address the direct GHG emissions created during operations. An example of this is the installation of variable flow drives to replace control valve throttling. As a result of operating experience, Trans Mountain continues to identify and integrate design changes for new projects to improve operating efficiency while reducing GHG and other emissions.
Trans Mountain does not own or operate the marine vessels associated with existing operations nor will it directly own or operate the marine vessels associated with the proposed Project. Trans Mountain’s tanker acceptance criteria require tankers and barges to be of modern build and to be equipped and maintained in accordance with international and Federal regulations and operated to best practices. Regular surveys and maintenance of the vessel, including such equipment such as the vessel’s propulsion and auxiliary machinery, boilers and oil handling equipment will ensure that design parameters, including emission limits, are met during operation of the vessel. The vessel shall carry an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate in the form set out in Appendix I to Annex VI to MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) and must keep on board a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan that meets the requirements of Regulation 22 of Annex VI to MARPOL and is meant to guide the crew to operate the vessel and equipment in an energy efficient manner: thus, mitigating emissions during her operations in Canadian waters.
All marine vessels operating as part of the Project are required to adhere to the federal requirements including:
Canada’s Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations (SOR/2012-69) under the Canada Shipping Act (2001;); and Environment Canada’s Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations.
Page 7 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
The Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations set varying requirements for Canadian vessels, vessels operating in Canadian waters, and vessels operating in waters deemed to be Emission Control Areas. The International Maritime Organization officially designated the North American Emission Control Area, which includes waters within 200 nautical miles of the coast of British Columbia as noted in Port of Seattle et al. (2013).
Marine vessels operating as part of the Project will include the following mitigation measures within the Emission Control Areas as required by the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations (described in Minister of Justice 2012):
marine tankers and barges will use fuel oil with sulphur content of less than 10,000 ppm (1.0%) before January 1, 2015;
marine tankers and barges will use fuel oil with sulphur content of less than 1,000 ppm (0.1%) after January 1, 2015;
foreign tankers and barges constructed after December 31, 1999 but before January 1, 2011 will meet Tier I standards. This includes foreign tankers and barges with power outputs of more than 130 kilowatts and rated engine speeds less than 130 revolutions per minute constructed after December 31, 1999 but before January 1,
2011 which will emit less than 17.0 g of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) per kilowatt-hour;
tankers and barges constructed after January 1, 2011 will meet Tier II standards. This includes tankers and barges with power outputs of more than 130 kilowatts and rated engine speeds less than 130 revolutions per minute constructed after January
1, 2011 which will emit less than 14.4 g of NO2 per kilowatt-hour;
tankers and barges constructed after 2016 may also be required to follow Tier III
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) requirements; however, the applicable ship construction date is not currently known as the International Maritime Organization implementation dates are undergoing a technical review;
the authorized representative of an oil tanker that uses a vapour collection system for volatile organic compounds must ensure that the vessel is fitted with a vapour collection system that meets the requirements of Regulation 15.5 of Annex VI to MARPOL;
the authorized representative of a crude oil tanker must ensure that a volatile organic compounds management plan that meets the requirements of Regulation 15.6 of Annex VI to MARPOL is implemented; and,
a vessel must not emit and a person must not permit the emission of an ozone- depleting substance from an installation on a vessel except in circumstances permitted under the regulation.
Tugboats that are classified as large marine vessels will adhere to Environment Canada’s Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations (Environment Canada 2013). These
Page 8 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
vessels will meet marine diesel sulphur content requirements of less than 1,000 mg/kg (0.1%) starting in June 2014 as noted in Environment Canada (2013).
References:
Environment Canada. 2013. Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations – Maximum Sulphur Limits for Diesel Fuel.
Minister of Justice. 2012. Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations. SOR/2012- 69. Last amended: December 6, 2013.
Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma and Port Metro Vancouver. 2013. Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy: 2012 Implementation Report.
Page 9 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
1.4 Dock location
Reference:
A3SORO
Preamble:
- KM have decided to expand their facility west and locate the major portion in front of the Westridge neighbourhood.
- KM have produced a sound level study which shows how the proposed new dock locations will transmit increased sound levels into Westridge, however, they have not done any studies on how to curb increased sound levels; please provide these studies.
Request: a) The Westridge neighbourhood have met with KM numerous times and asked to expand east away from the neighbourhood to an uninhabited area, and exchange the water lease with Burnaby; why don't KM seem aggressive with this idea? b) What will KM do to ensure the sound levels from the proposed, closer facility are at the same or a decreased level as those from the existing location? c) Provide alternate dock layouts that would respect Westridge privacy that KM have investigated. d) Produce a study on how to eliminate increased noise levels because of the increased proximity of the facility to the Westridge neighbourhood. e) Provide an independent property assessment for each of the 120 houses in the immediate Westridge vicinity detailing the potential property depreciation as a result of:
the pipeline project the dock location the visibility of the dock location the increased sound levels the increased emission levels any other factors that can be attributed directly back to the KM pipeline that could negatively impact residential property values f) Provide each home-owner with the above independent property assessment and a proposal on how these costs will be offset by KM.
Response: a) Please see the response to Corcoran K IR No. 1.2.2. b) Trans Mountain has included noise reducing elements into the engineering design of the proposed expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal. Examples include the enclosure
Page 10 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
of noisy equipment within building structures to help reduce environmental noise levels as well including silencers on motorized equipment. Section 7.6.6 and specifically Table 7.6.6-1 of Volume 5A of the Application explain key recommendations and mitigation measures that will be used at the Westridge Marine Terminal to help reduce sound levels at surrounding receptors (residences) for both construction and normal operation conditions. These measures included the following: "Review and analyse equipment specifications to ensure sound emissions from mechanical equipment are equal to or less than the sound emissions used in the Terrestrial Noise and Vibration Technical Report.” This review would be part of the detailed engineering design phase.
Communications with the community will continue regarding the Project, and specifically in relation to noise. Please refer to the responses to NEB IR No. 1.19b and No. 1.19c. c) The process of selecting a location and orientation for the berths is influenced by a number of different criteria and involves optimizing a number of often competing interests, including:
providing sufficient water depth and underkeel clearance for tanker vessel safety; providing sufficient space for vessel and tug manoeuvring; providing safe and secure vessel moorings under all foreseeable conditions of tide, wind, and currents; optimizing berth orientation relative to prevailing winds, currents, and tides; avoiding obstructing the navigation channel for passing vessel traffic; avoiding encroaching on established anchorage areas; minimizing changes to the existing waterlot lease areas; avoiding impinging on the waterfront access /waterlot rights of adjacent and neighbouring property owners; proximity to and interface with the uplands facilities and process constraints; minimizing dredging by placing the structures in deeper water; minimizing overall environmental footprint by keeping the facilities as compact as possible; engineering considerations such as maximum water depth and soil conditions, seismicity, liquefaction, etc.; minimizing impact (e.g. view sheds, lights, noise, odour, traffic) on neighbouring residential areas; ability to construct the new facilities without hampering the ongoing operations of the existing berth; construction schedule and duration, including fisheries sensitive periods; feedback from various stakeholders such as Port Metro Vancouver, the BC Coast Pilots, City of Burnaby, etc. as possible; and overall construction and maintenance planning.
In general, it is not possible to optimize all of these criteria simultaneously, as optimizing one criterion often means adjusting another. For example, spacing the berths further apart to provide more room for manoeuvring increases the overall environmental
Page 11 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
footprint and intrudes more into neighbouring view sheds. In assessing the various criteria, the overriding priority is the terminal safety as it pertains to navigation/vessel safety and spill avoidance, as well as safety and of operating personnel.
The dock layout option presented in the Application has been deemed the best suited for the location at Westridge and provides the necessary high degree of safety for the terminal, vessels, workers and other users of Burrard Inlet while minimizing the impact on those residing near the marine terminal to the greatest practical extent.
Please refer to Section 3.4.4.1.4 of Volume 4A. d) The values presented in Tables 6-55 and 6-56 of Technical Report 5C-3 in Volume 5C, Terrestrial Noise and Vibration Technical Report (RWDI December 2013) of the Application, show that the predicted cumulative sound levels for the proposed Westridge Marine Terminal expansion are expected to comply with the BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) Noise Control Best Practices Guideline (BC OGC 2009) criterion values, which are those recommended in the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014).
References:
British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission. 2009. British Columbia Noise Control Best Practices Guideline, March 17, 2009. Victoria, BC.
National Energy Board. 2014. Filing Manual. Inclusive of Release 2014-01 (January 2014). Calgary, AB. e) As indicated in the response to Eliesen M IR No. 1.13a, the issue of impacts to property values has been raised during some open houses and through some emails, telephone calls into the Trans Mountain project office, and in meetings; primarily by adjacent landowners, rather than directly affected landowners. Trans Mountain recognizes that media coverage of this issue and statements by public officials expressing this concern have raised the profile of the issue in the public. As a result, Trans Mountain has undertaken specific research to address this perceived concern.
A review of previous research papers and articles, prepared by Dr. Tsur Somerville of the UBC, has been prepared to ascertain what other researchers and experts have found in their investigations of the potential impacts of pipeline development upon private properties. That literature review is included in the response to Amy C IR No. 1.3g.
In determining whether compensation is applicable to a specific landowner, Trans Mountain is guided by legal requirements. In general Trans Mountain’s practice is to first minimize any potential damages to the extent practical by using and adapting responsive construction and operations practices; and second, provide mitigation to reverse or treat any remaining impacts. Should residual damages remain, Trans Mountain would provide commensurate compensation for damages directly related to and caused by the
Page 12 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
acquisition of lands, construction of the pipeline, and inspection, maintenance or repair of the pipeline.
Legal requirements for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project are set out within the NEB Act. Those provisions of the NEB Act apply specifically to directly affected parties and include:
Under NEB Act, Section 75, “A company shall, in the exercise of the powers granted by this Act or a Special Act, do as little damage as possible, and shall make full compensation in the manner provided in this Act and in a Special Act, to all persons interested, for all damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.”
Under the NEB Act Section 86, when a company acquires lands for its operations, they are responsible for any damages directly related to and caused by the acquisition of lands, construction of the pipeline, and inspection, maintenance or repair of the pipeline. Under that Section, compensation related to the installation of a pipeline includes compensation for the acquisition of lands, compensation for damages, and indemnification of land owners from all liabilities related to the company’s operations. These requirements would apply to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project.
Under NEB Act Section 97, factors an arbitration committee would consider in a determination of compensation include the market value of the lands taken both for permanent easement and temporary working space, loss of use of the lands by the owner, damages caused by construction and, noise and inconvenience that can reasonably be expected to arise from the construction. Trans Mountain is incorporating these factors in the compensation framework being developed for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Additional information respecting Trans Mountain Expansion Project compensation framework for directly affected landowners can be found in responses to NEB IR No. 1.29 and CGLAP IR No. 1.7b.
The requirements of the NEB Act and company practice is to minimize and mitigate effects upon workers and community members through a variety of construction and environmental practices as documented in the application, including the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and Facilities EPP. In addition to construction management personnel, TMPL will have environmental inspectors in place during construction to ensure EPP measures are implemented as needed and as committed to.
Trans Mountain’s responsibility for compensation for impacts to adjacent, not directly affected, members of the community would arise should the activities of the company, after efforts to minimize and mitigate effects result in directly related damages as defined in the NEB Act.
Should adjacent landowners be of the opinion that the operations related to the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline or the Project have caused them directly related damages as defined in the NEB Act, Trans Mountain would look to the affected parties to provide the
Page 13 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
company with information and documentation as to the nature and extent of the perceived damages. That information can be provided to the Manager, Land, Trans Mountain Pipeline. Using the information received, if Trans Mountain determines that damages resulted from the company’s operations, it will provide any commensurate compensation due to the affected party. f) Please see the response to your request Syme N IR No. 1.4e.
Page 14 of 15 Trans Mountain Response to Syme N IR No. 1
1.5 Alternate pipeline routes
Reference:
A3SOY8 / A3SIL4
Preamble:
- KM have selected, as one of their options, from the Burnaby tank farm to the KM Westridge terminal via Hastings, Cliff Ave.
Request: a) Justify a pipeline route that would:
encircle a neighbourhood with only one exit/entrance to the Westridge area of 120 homes. go thru the Burrard Inlet conservation area. disrupt the single exit/entrance access point for traffic to the Westride neighbourhood on Cliff Ave for the construction of a two 30" pipeline corridor. go thru a one access, single exit/entrance point for emergency equipment. go thru existing storm, sewer, natural gas, water, and jet fuel pipelines. go thru two substantial Metro-Vancouver storm and sewer pumping stations.
Response: a) The previously proposed pipeline corridor along Hastings Street and Cliff Avenue is no longer preferred (see explanation in Trans Mountain’s response to NEB IR No. 1.40b). The currently proposed revised pipeline corridor is shown on Map 54 of 54 in the 1:50,000 scale map book provided in response to NEB IR No. 1.84a, Attachment 1. Trans Mountain will also provide an update on routing in the Burnaby-Westridge area in Technical Update No. 1, to be submitted to the NEB in Q3 2014. The update will include additional information and a map of the proposed and alternative corridors being considered.
Page 15 of 15