Company Name •••DRAFT••• Month/Year Project Title Project Number
APPENDIX C
Page C-1
TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT Minutes of Meeting Meeting Location: Travelodge, Duncan, BC; Team & Discipline: AET TERMPOL Meeting DOCUMENT NUMBER: DATE: January 17, 2014 TIME (24 hour): 1100 to 1400 MEETING TYPE: Internal (send record to [email protected]) Aboriginal (send record to [email protected]) PARTICIPANTS Full Name, Title, Organization Email Phone Additional Al Grove; Hwlitsum First Nations Jack Smith; Halalt First Nations Ruth Sauder; Penelakut Tribe Myrus James; Penelakut Tribe Ronda Jordan; Stz’uminus First Nations Eamon Gaunt; Cowichan Tribes Helen Reid: Cowichan Tribes Larry George; Cowichan Tribes David Robbins; Legal Counsel Celina Albany; Cowichan Tribes Denise James; Penelakut Tribe Bob Gowe; Transport Canada [email protected] Katherine Beavis; Transport Canada [email protected] Michael Davies; Kinder Morgan, Canada [email protected] Madhvi Russell; Transport Canada [email protected] Hart MacKinnon: Transport Canada [email protected] Stafford Reid; Guest Chris Badger; TMEP [email protected]>, Bikram Kanjilal; TMEP [email protected] Georgia Dixon; TMEP [email protected] Gary Youngman; TMEP [email protected] Max Nock; AET; TMEP [email protected] Jamie Andrews; TMEP [email protected]
MEETING MINUTES
Introductions A distinction was made that there are five different tribes within the Cowichan Nation Alliance and not solely the Cowichan Nation. These Tribes are Halalt, Stz’uminus, Hwiltsum, Cowichan and Penelakut.
Al Grove explained that the TERMPOL reports were found to be lacking as there was no reference to Section 35 and various other categories including fishing rights. It was also found that there was silence on First Nations issues.
Overview of TERMPOL Process Katherine (Transport Canada) explained that:
• the TERMPOL process is voluntary and the process is driven by the proponent;
• Transport Canada recommends that proponents seek local and traditional knowledge to inform the studies and enhance the marine safety assessment;
• there is an opportunity for input at this time on the TERMPOL surveys and studies; and
• these surveys and studies have also been provided to the National Energy Board (NEB) in support of the marine volume of the facilities application. Ideally, comments should be provided to the NEB, Transport Canada and Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC).
Please send records to [email protected] (internal) or [email protected] (external). Page 1
Transport Canada Explained the Timeline for Upcoming Events • Input opportunities in regards to environmental impacts and impacts to Aboriginal rights, these would be best captured through the NEB’s Environmental Assessment and Aboriginal consultation process.
• If information is provided to Transport Canada regarding traditional knowledge relevant to the technical review of marine safety (e.g., navigational hazards), it can be considered by the TERMPOL Review Committee during the review of the studies.
• Comments on surveys and studies will also be reviewed by Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP).
• There is no formal information request system for TERMPOL, however, Transport Canada intends to submit the TERMPOL Report to the NEB and it would be subject to the same rules there as other evidence filed.
• It is anticipated that the TERMPOL report will be finalized in the spring 2014.
• Information requests should best be directed to the NEB.
• The TERMPOL recommendations are not legally binding.
Q: Who sits on the TERMPOL review committee? Who gives direction for the reports?
A (Transport Canada): The TERMPOL Review Committee is constituted by Transport Canada and includes various branches of federal agencies: the Canadian Coast Guard; BC Coast Pilots; Environment Canada; Port Metro Vancouver; and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The proponents are responsible for the studies and the surveys. The TERMPOL Review Committee does not have involvement in producing the studies and surveys, but reviews them once they are submitted.
C: With respect to Aboriginal engagement, as this group has been excluded from the report, there is concern that it is too late to be involved in the scoping of these studies. This is a problem at this point.
R (Transport Canada): The TERMPOL manual is outdated (2001) and there is duplication with other processes and programs that have started since that time, like environmental assessments. Transport Canada acknowledges that early engagement is better, but beyond discussing with TMEP which surveys and studies would be conducted from the list in the TERMPOL manual, Transport Canada has not been involved in the development of the surveys and studies. Transport Canada can provide more information about how the scoping was done (i.e., which surveys and studies were identified for the TERMPOL). Most of the surveys and studies were included and those that were not were deemed not relevant to the project.
C: The communities have a difficult time dealing with [review of TERMPOL studies] as there is a lack of technicians to review these studies. There are only 6 references in 200 pages with no citations (referring to the Quantitative Risk Assessment report from DNV). This report is not a valid academic study and we need to gather and put forward new information.
R (Transport Canada): If there are specific concerns relevant to the TERMPOL review process, we encourage CNA to submit them in writing to TMEP and the TERMPOL Review Committee. If concerns are related to environmental impacts, they should be submitted to the NEB.
C: It does a dis-service to state that there will be no risk. I think that there will be a spill in the next 100 years.
A (Trans Mountain): The consequences of a spill are often considered so dire that the probability side is lost. The report does identify various probabilities that are outlined within the report. The small ones are more probable than a larger one.
Q: In terms of the scope of the TERMPOL process and the recommendations, I believe that spill response is not adequately developed. Which process is this likely to come out of? TERMPOL or NEB?
A (Transport Canada): It is not crystal clear at this point as to how spill response will be addressed in the TERMPOL report as the regime is currently changing. The Federal Tanker Expert Safety panel recently released a report discussing this.
Q: What is the protocol for traditional fishing within shipping lanes? It’s an issue in the communities as the fishing is
Please send records to [email protected] (internal) or [email protected] (external). Page 2
important in the communities.
A: Every opening is broadcast to shippers. A part of this process is to review the opportunities to improve the current practices.
Trans Mountain Expansion Project TERMPOL Process Overview C: It should be noted for this group that once the oil is on the tanker, the oil is no longer owned by KMC.
R (Trans Mountain): As a part of the vessel acceptance program, there are requirements and criteria that must be met if shippers want to use the Westridge Terminal.
Q: Would communities be compensated if there were a loss to fisheries?
A (Trans Mountain): The SOPF provides compensation. Please see additional explanation provided separately.
Q: On Page 96 it says that all the vessels will be double-hulled. This says that the majority will be double-hulled.
A (Trans Mountain): The tankers will all be double-hulled. Please see additional explanation provided separately.
Q: You spoke of workshops (Hazard Identification), who were they done with?
A (Trans Mountain): Many experts, however, I think you are referring to the lack of Aboriginal-specific workshops. We did have First Nations attendees at our second hazard meeting in Vancouver.
Q: When KMC is asking their experts to develop their report regarding workshops, what is the direction as to who is involved in these workshops?
A (Transport Canada): Transport Canada was there as an observer.
Q: If increased traffic continues to grow, there will be an increase in accident probability.
A (Trans Mountain): There is a traffic forecast in the report. The vessels and tonnage have gone up so, therefore, it’s not necessarily shipping numbers going up. TERMPOL 3.2 has this information. Accident probability in the risk assessment is specific to Trans Mountain’s traffic.
Q: Escort tugs were used when transporting coal in the same scenario that Trans Mountain is proposing. This coal was spilled and it was devastating for the community (reference is to an incident that occurred at Westshore Terminals).
A (Trans Mountain): The tug practices are different for TMEP. Multiple tugs will be secured to the vessel far before it reaches the berth, and in this example, the coal was spilled as a result of the vessel striking the loading conveyor; the coal was not spilled from the vessel.
Q: This probability model is based on averages (referring to weather). What about the abnormalities? The worst-case scenario?
A: Computer models have inherent limitations. Averages are used because they mathematically account for a range of potential probabilities. Please see the additional explanation provided separately.
C: The pipeline crosses the Fraser River and the Halalt First Nations has an interest in that area.
David Robbins showed two maps. One of the Fraser River and the other of the shipping lanes.
C: TERMPOL will have conclusions at the federal level. It will be a piece of evidence and these timelines need to be more flexible if we are to have input.
R (Transport Canada): We have indicated to Trans Mountain that we are willing to incorporate input provided that is relevant to the TERMPOL review. We have also indicated that we expect our review will take approximately 4 months. As such, input would need to be received by late March or early April.
Please send records to [email protected] (internal) or [email protected] (external). Page 3
Target Date Completion Task Creation Action # Action Assigned To (mmddyyyy) (mmddyyyy) (Y/N) To provide response regarding First Trans Mountain 1 Nation participation in Hazard Identification. Confirm that all tankers would be Trans Mountain January 21, 2014 2 double-hulled (Page 96). To circulate the list of how the First Trans Mountain 3 Nations were selected to be involved in the workshops. Links to be sent to Cowichan Nation Trans Mountain January 20, 2014 4 Alliance regarding SOPF funding. Explain how weather data was inputted Trans Mountain January 21, 2014 5 and used in the risk model. Provide a copy of the presentation. Trans Mountain January 21, 2014 6 Clarify scope of studies included in the Transport January 24, 2014 7 Trans Mountain TERMPOL submission. Canada MEETING RECORD COMPLETED BY: Jamie Andrews
APPENDIX A
2. Page 96 mentions: “Oil tankers that call Trans Mountain’s Westridge Marine Terminal are and will be modern double-hull vessels of Aframax size (80,000-120,000 DWT), and in the majority of these vessels, the bunker oil tanks will be protected by a double-hull, so only the most severe impacts from an incident like a high-energy collision or grounding is expected to cause an oil spill.”
As explained during the meeting, until recently, the construction rules for tankers to be designated as DH required the cargo tanks to be of DH construction. The bunker tanks could be single hull. As of 2010, construction rules for all vessels have been changed and bunker tanks of more recently built tankers would be of double-hull. This information can be found on Page 20 of the study: “IMO requires that all tankers built after August 2010 are designed with protected bunker tanks and with individual bunker tank size not exceeding 2,500 metric tons. The average age of the global Aframax and Panamax size tanker fleet is 9 years. Based on this, it is expected that 40% of the tankers will have protected bunker tanks in 2018 and 100% in 2028.”
4. References to the Marine Liability Act that relate to the SOPF. Administration of the SOPF falls under the Marine Liability Act (MLA). Part 7 (Sections 91 to 125) of the act deals with the SOPF. Eligible claimants are defined in Section 107 and include:
(a) an individual who derives income from fishing, from the production, breeding, holding or rearing of fish, or from the culture or harvesting of marine plants; and
(d) an individual who fishes or hunts for food or animal skins for their own consumption or use.
The MLA can be found here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-0.7/
The SOPF publishes an annual report which contains an excellent summary of the overall regime. It appears that the SOPF website has changed recently, it is located here: http://ssopfund.gc.ca/en/home. The latest annual report appears to be here: http://ssopfund.gc.ca/CMFiles/reports-en/AnnualReport2012-2013-en.pdf.
Note that the Federal Tanker Safety Panel has recommended eliminating the liability limit the SOPF and that this is described in their report to the Federal Government http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/mosprr/transport_canada_tanker_report_accessible_eng.pdf.
5. The weather information used in DNV’s marine risk evaluation model was prepared by EBA based upon historical Environment Canada data; the entire report is contained in “Meteorological and Oceanographic Data Relevant to the Proposed Westridge Terminal Shipping Expansion”, which forms part of the TERMPOL submission. Weather patterns for the different sections of the route have been input to the DNV model according to Table 3 of TERMPOL
Please send records to [email protected] (internal) or [email protected] (external). Page 4
3.15 (see Page 28) and thus, the model incorporates a percentage of poor weather in the calculation.
6. Presentation copy is attached.
Please send records to [email protected] (internal) or [email protected] (external). Page 5
Tsawwassen First Nation
Trans Mountain Expansion Project Meeting
TERMPOL Process Workshop
March 25, 2014: 12 PM to 3 PM
Attendees:
• Colin Ward, Tsawwassen First Nation, Director of Public Services;
• Andrew Bak, Tsawwassen First Nation, Resource Specialist;
• Bob Bocking, LGL, Fisheries Biologist;
• Mike DiMarchi, LGL, Wildlife Biologist;
• Bikram Kanjilal, Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC), Marine Lead;
• Michael Davies, KMC, Terminal/Marine Lead;
• Ellen Frisch, KMC, Aboriginal Engagement Team;
• Bob Gowe, Transport Canada, TERMPOL Committee;
• Hart MacKinnon, Transport Canada, TERMPOL; and
• Katherine Beavis, Transport Canada.
Meeting opened with introductions and a working lunch at 12:15 PM.
1. Transport Canada: Overview of TERMPOL Process: (Bob Gowe)
TERMPOL was started in the 1970s and has undergone a series of revisions. Currently, a Phase 1 policy review of the TERMPOL Guide is underway. Some revisions have been made, which are not yet reflected in the guide.
Q: Has the geographical limit for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) been established?
A: Yes. Westridge Terminal to the 12 mile limit.
Q: How revisionary will the TERMPOL Guide changes be (e.g., as sweeping as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012?)
A (Transport Canada [TC]): Not as sweeping, since the process is not mandatory. However, it will include a recommendation to engage Aboriginal groups in the TERMPOL Review Process when surveys and studies are being conducted.
Q: What is the rationale for TERMPOL to be voluntary?
A (TC): The findings are not binding. Current standards are compliance-based and regulations apply across Canada. TERMPOL is a project-specific opportunity for companies to get feedback on their proposals. It supports potential gap identification for future National Energy Board (NEB) submissions.
Tsawwassen First Nation TERMPOL Meeting Page 1 of 5
Q: Recommendations are made within KMC’s reports. Who do the recommendations target and who undertakes the recommended enhancements? The federal government? Kinder Morgan? Other organizations?
A (TC): Kinder Morgan’s studies make recommendations “in” to Transport Canada and the TERMPOL Review Committee. The TERMPOL Review Committee evaluates them and issues a report with final recommendations “out”. Recommendations may endorse those proposed by KMC or they make separate recommendations. They will be forwarded to the responsible organizations for consideration.
Q: What is the benefit to KMC of TERMPOL?
A (KMC): There is a public expectation that the process will be completed. It provides a structured review of key marine issues, which may be considered by the NEB. The NEB Guide is not outlined in depth and TERMPOL allows for the collection and use of data in a variety of ways to address project risks and to design effective preventative measures and mitigations.
Q: TERMPOL seems out of step with NEB. What is the linkage between the processes?
A (TC): Yes, the TERMPOL process is ahead of the NEB process. The TERMPOL studies were submitted to the NEB and the TERMPOL Review Committee at the same time in December. The TERMPOL process will allow for a focused review of marine matters which can then potentially be addressed by the NEB. Using other projects as examples, the NEB may include project approval conditions which flow from TERMPOL recommendations. Also, KMC collected data and conducted studies which inform separate reports for the NEB which are more focused on environmental influences.
Discussion regarding influence proponents have to be completed over the process and selection of studies. The proponent reviews the list of TERMPOL studies, the requirements of which are detailed in the TERMPOL Guide. The proponent then identifies which studies are applicable to the project and seeks the TERMPOL Review Committee’s concurrence on the proposed list of studies to be conducted. Although the proponent may not complete all surveys and studies listed in the TERMPOL Guide, the content of the studies that it does complete must adhere to the requirements prescribed in the TERMPOL Guide.
Discussion regarding First Nation and stakeholder influence in other processes that allow for the development of terms of reference or joint definition of studies. TC noted that this is a consideration for future TERMPOL processes, but currently the TERMPOL Guide is a prescriptive list of studies and does not allow that flexibility. When discussing the “scope” of TERMPOL, this term is very limited and refers only to the studies that may be conducted and the geographic boundaries for the studies.
Q: What are the studies measured against – a terms of reference?
A (TC and KMC): Terms of Reference are not determined, only agreement on the studies to be conducted and geographic scope. The proposed studies and the geographic scope were included in a proposal letter from KMC to Transport Canada, [which] was affirmed by Transport Canada. The letters are part of KMC’s Facility Application.
Q: What is the timeline for the TERMPOL review and how does the Tsawwassen First Nation meeting and feedback factor into the review?
A (TC): The TERMPOL Review Committee will aim to complete its review within 4 months of receiving reports – about mid-April. This timeline may be adjusted. TC encourages proponents to include First Nations input into the studies for consideration by the TERMPOL Review Committee.
Tsawwassen First Nation TERMPOL Meeting Page 2 of 5
Q: Will TERMPOL studies reflect engagement with First Nation communities?
A (KMC): KMC has been engaging with many First Nation communities. More than six marine use studies with First Nations have been completed which have fed into the TERMPOL and environmental studies.
KMC noted that since first engaging with Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) in 2013, the project has advanced without the benefit of TFN’s specific advice and interests. It was KMC’s preference to have information received from TFN in 2013 to include in the TERMPOL and NEB reports and wish to receive anything from TFN as early as possible to continue to feed into the TERMPOL and NEB processes.
Given the current timing of the TERMPOL and NEB processes, KMC and TC would like to receive written comments on the TERMPOL studies as soon as possible. Any additional studies or reviews by TFN would need to be achieved in the next 8 weeks to meet anticipated NEB supplementary filing deadlines before the hearing process is likely to commence.
KMC seeks to understand what information TFN would be prepared to provide to the process after the meeting. TFN noted that they will submit a written report and questions to both TC and KMC.
2. KMC TERMPOL Process
Mike Davies, TMEP Marine Lead, provided an overview of the project using a PowerPoint presentation. The group was guided by questions that TFN had prepared and answers were discussed in the context of the reports which reflected that work.
Q: KMC currently has barges off-loading jet fuel at the Westridge Terminal. Will this be impacted by the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery project?
A (KMC): No. The net number of barges will likely remain the same. Current barging going to Westridge Terminal could be redirected to Vancouver Airport.
Q: How is “vessel” defined in the studies?
A (KMC): Anything with an Automated Information System as a result, not a small pleasure craft, for example. The studies breakdown figures by type of vessel.
1:20 PM - Break
KMC provided an overview of the Risk Analysis Study (3.15). It was explained that the traffic study was developed, including the use of the MARCS model, to look at the probability side of risk. A key element of all of the studies is to look at the cumulative probability which then leads to an analysis of the consequences.
1. Reducing Risk – Studies analyzed the risks of a probability of a certain size of spills. KMC explained how preventative measures have been identified (e.g., enhanced tug escort through Straight of Juan de Fuca) and a moving exclusion zone. 2. Mitigation Measures – Increasing confidence in coastal marine spill response capacity is a key need. KMC is a board member of West Coast Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) and requested that WCMRC develop a new policy to address enhanced response standards. WCMRC has led studies to identify additional marine base locations and resources in the coming years. These include a 2 hour response window in Burrard Inlet and 6 hours elsewhere in the Salish Sea, as well as addition of five bases, the Nanaimo, Sooke, Roberts Bank, Sidney and Bamfield regions.
Tsawwassen First Nation TERMPOL Meeting Page 3 of 5
Another report is the Fate and Behaviour Study which evaluates how product behaves in the environment under certain circumstances. Information received from this study was fed into the environmental assessment process as well as the spill response planning process led by WCMRC.
Discussion Regarding Risk Analysis 3.15 TFN has reviewed the Vessel Traffic Risk Analysis (VTRA) Study led by George Washington University with Makah Tribe. TC noted that the TERMPOL Review Committee had received a presentation on the (VTRA) study in the past week.
Q: What is the difference between the VTRA and DNV (author of the KMC-commissioned risk analysis report)?
A (KMC): KMC noted that a detailed analysis is being prepared now. Both reports are different ways of looking at the same information. VTRA is about the change in risk throughout the region. DNV is risk related to the KMC project.
TFN advised that the DNV report should include confidence intervals and the changes to those confidence intervals with differing input values. The current numbers appear “too tidy”. KMC agreed this is a sound approach to statistical modelling and will enquire with DNV.
Q. Does KMC consider risks associated with security?
A (KMC): The application refers to the requirements of the Marine Transportation Security Act; please see Volume 8A, Section 1.4.1.7.
Q. How did Roberts Bank Port (RBT2) factor into KMC’s studies?
A (KMC): All marine traffic has a predictable steady growth pattern over time. This factor was applied to 2012 numbers to arrive at a 2018 number, and calculated through 2028.
Q: Would the TERMPOL Review Committee ever analyze the potential for future growth and consider certain limitations?
A: No, the TRC reviews the marine safety elements of a specific project. Compared to the Straights of Malacca or the English Channel, at a “world level”, British Columbia’s coastal waterways are considered very light in terms of traffic. Vessel traffic can be viewed online at www.marinetraffic.com.
TFN noted that there are environmental effects that accompany heavy shipping and there are concerns in the region on cumulative effects. TFN is contributing to a number of project reviews, but there is not one process looking at vessel safety or other issues, for example.
Q: Regarding potential need for marine rescue tugs, does KMC anticipate changes of the tug fleet as a result of the Robert Allan Report (which indicates there are only two tugs capable of rescue under certain weather conditions)?
A (KMC): The report indicates the current fleet of tugs can perform the work 99% of the time. Other challenges can be mitigated by not heading out into weather conditions. There is time to build any necessary tugs. This must be a market-driven approach whereby tug manufacturers see the demand.
Q: Will KMC provide capacity to provide the tug?
A (KMC): KMC prefers to see a regulatory requirement for the tug. This will drive market demand. As a terminal operator, another option is to modify vessel acceptance process to include arrangements with tug operators.
Tsawwassen First Nation TERMPOL Meeting Page 4 of 5
Q: How can a “moving exclusion zone” be enforced?
A (KMC): Implementation would include formalized processes to prioritize tanker traffic through vessel traffic control management. There are a number of levels; Vancouver Traffic Safety would monitor routes and provide security announcements, coastal pilots onboard ships have communication protocols between them and the Coast Guard would be aware. Ideally, a policy will be implemented which includes procedures and training within the marine industry.
TFN queried TC’s role in the process. TC could evaluate where there could be consequences for vessel operators which do not comply. This depends on if it is enshrined in a regulation. Compliance is otherwise based on the professionalism of the pilots and vessel operators.
TFN’s interest is in how requirements recommended by TERMPOL/NEB are enforced.
Next Steps TFN wants to ensure that there is information available to share with the community. Andrew Bak is the linkage.
• KMC (EF) noted that staff are available to make a project presentation at a TFN community meeting if this is of interest. Evening meetings around a meal are a good option.
• TC (KB) noted that TC can offer to make a presentation of the TERMPOL report once it is released.
Action Items 1. KMC to provide PowerPoint presentation of TERMPOL studies to TFN. 2. TFN to provide written comments on TERMPOL submission and questions to KMC and TC. 3. KMC to enquire with DNV about the inclusion of confidence intervals in their risk figures in Report 3.15 and KMC to provide results of that discussion to TFN. 4. TFN to confirm if a broader community meeting or open house is of interest in the weeks ahead.
Tsawwassen First Nation TERMPOL Meeting Page 5 of 5
Pacheedaht TERMPOL Workshop
April 17, 2014
Port Renfrew
10:30 AM to 1:15 PM
Attendees:
• Pacheedaht: Treaty Negotiation Team and Chief and Council;
• Marvin McClurg, Dorothy Hunt, Chief Arlyss Daniels, Councillor Jeff Jones, Jason Howes, Kevin Neary, +2, Rosanne Kyle, Virginia Mathers and JFK Law;
• Kinder Morgan Canada: Mike Davies, Bikram Kanjilal, Ellen Frisch and Dave Fowles;
• Transport Canada: Katherine Beavis and Bob Gowe; and
• Western Canada Marine Response Corp: Randy Neufeld (arrived 12 PM).
1. Project Overview by KMC - Mike Davies 10:30 AM to 12 PM
Q: What is the change of the percentage of dilbit being shipped if the project is approved?
A: Now about 25-30%. Producers were asked for the type of materials for transport, but are not required to remain with that product.
Action: To provide percentage of diluted bitumen anticipated post-project implementation.
Q: How many ships transit the Juan de Fuca Straight and what will the change in that number be due to the project?
A: Now about 6,000 large vessels/year. 600 are tankers, and of those, 60 are bound for Westridge. The project could increase the number of tankers annually bound for Westridge to more than 400.
Westridge tankers are about 4% of projected 2018 traffic in JdFs.
Q: How does the regulation work for traffic separation and compliance with sovereign maritime rules when ships are entering Canada in US water and US ships are departing in Canadian waters?
A: Vessels have the “right of innocent passage” through international agreement. Vessels compliant in the country whose destination they are bound for are deemed to be compliant in the waters of the country they are transiting.
Q: What happens if a laden Canadian tanker has a problem?
A: It will have two pilots onboard until the Brotchie Ledge.
Q: Northern Gateway is building “super tugs” – will KMC undertake the same?
A: The difference in projects is vessel size. Westridge tankers are limited to Aframax size (approximately 580,000 barrels). Northern Gateway proposal is for VLCC size carriers which hold
TERMPOL Workshop Page 1 of 4 April 17, 2014
up to 2 million barrels. KMC has studied the Vancouver tug fleet and the ability of it to monitor an Aframax tanker is appropriate.
Q: NG had terminal requirements, including other restrictions such as speed – will KMC?
A: Yes. KMC has terminal requirements. Speed in JdFs is expected to be 13 knots.
Action: KMC to provide vessel terminal requirements.
Q: What is the difference between “crude” and “heavy” oil?
A: Viscosity; heavier density. The tariff sets limits on the density and viscosity of materials transportable in the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Q: Does the product float or sink?
A: Many tests were made through the Gainford Study which demonstrated floating over 10 days. With the right environmental conditions and sediment, it can sink.
Discussion occurred about the relative density of salt and freshwater and the unique features of Port San Juan. There is a high concentration of fresh water because of the rivers and the bay is very shallow with significant sediment. With the lower density of fresh water and high sediment, there are fears that the product will sink and foul the shoreline and shallow areas.
Recommendation: PFN believes fate and behaviour testing should occur with the sediment and salinity levels of the Pacheedaht territory.
Q: Is KMC aware of the sediment levels in the JdFs?
A: Not specifically. Sediment testing approximated that at the mouth of the Fraser River.
PFN noted that there was interest in understanding the sediment levels in the JdFs and the salinity levels in the PFN Territory to understand the effects in an area such as Port San Juan.
Q: Is there a wave action study?
A: Yes – oil spill trajectory modelling and wave action. Weather data for the year 2012 was used as it was deemed to have “normal” overall conditions.
PFN Recommendation: Studies should look at weather extremes. Full stochastic model of extreme wind and wave conditions should be run. There is concern about the risk associated with the inability to mitigate a spill and the environmental impact and ensuing impact on Aboriginal rights.
2. Transport Canada TERMPOL Process - 12 PM to 12:45 PM
Q: When will the review of Transport Canada’s Phase 1 TERMPOL Guide be completed?
A: In the next 12 months, and not in time for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project.
Q: How will the Tanker Safety Panel Report (TSPR) factor into the review?
A: The TERMPOL Review Committee is reviewing the report and recommendations, but it is a separate process from TERMPOL. TC will consider KMC’s submission in respect of the TSPR. Government will respond formally to the report in the coming weeks.
Q: How did KMC get Fisheries Report information?
TERMPOL Workshop Page 2 of 4 April 17, 2014
A: Through aggregation of Automated Information System (AIS) information. TC has received PFNs recent Marine Traditional Use Study and is reviewing it.
Q: What is the worst-case spill that TC has required?
A: The TERMPOL Guide states [that] the proponent should identify a “worst-case”, but credible accident scenario. KMC chose its worst-case scenario as the loss of two full cargo tanks at sea, which is 16,500 tonnes and the 90th percentile worst-case outflow scenario. At present, the spill risk planning standard recommended by KMC is for 20,000 tonnes.
TC reviewed the 2001 and 2006 traffic separation scheme approaches in the JdFs. Concern was expressed by PFN that the changes in 2006 resulted in conflict with large vessels being directed over Swiftsure Bank. There was no consultation with PFN on the change and it has had a significant impact to their safety and ability to conduct a safe food fishery.
Foggy fishing conditions present additional challenges when ships “surprise” fishers.
Discussions occurred about the possibility of equipping PFN vessels with AIS receivers to see the vessels nearby and potentially AIS transceivers to send a similar signal and be “seen” in addition to radar.
PFN Recommendation: Modify shipping transit through the Swiftsure Bank region, either through agreement with KMC or by modifying the shipping lanes.
3. Spill Response Planning - 12:45 PM to 1:15 PM
Q: How would equipment be deployed to new base locations (through government, Kinder Morgan)?
A (KMC): By the organization designated by Transport Canada, West Coast Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC).
Q: Regarding KMC’s proposal for more spill response bases and equipment, who must agree and make it happen?
A (KMC): KMC has recommended that it be adopted through the FTSPR as part of the regulation. Otherwise WCMRC should implement it. WCMRC must ensure that it has a budget to cover those costs and would levy the bulk oil cargo fee from shippers to ensure it occurs.
Q: The confluence of the “6 hour response time” circles have Pacheedaht at the outer edges of both. There is a lack of confidence in the ability to respond quickly. PFN asked who would protect the Pacheedaht community.
A: These are dedicated bases for WCMRC, but KMC and WCMRC want to work with communities to develop geographic response plans, provide training, and where invited in, potentially equipment for rapid deployment by trained community members. WCMRC will be consulting on base locations.
Q: When is the consultation to occur on final base locations?
A: After NEB hearings. WCMRC has ongoing work and is hiring staff and building capacity to engage with First Nation communities. Decisions will be made by early 2016 and [will be] implemented in early 2017.
Discussion occurred around deploying booms based on the size of waves. Boom size and skirt depth depends on the size of waves. Double booms is another strategy. It was acknowledged the booms cannot be deployed in heavy weather or fog conditions.
TERMPOL Workshop Page 3 of 4 April 17, 2014
PFN noted “approving” the project first, then planning second is too late.
PFN is concerned about the lack of evaluation of PFN’s rights. KMC noted its desire to work with PFN to develop processes and opportunities together to mitigate the impact of effects, however, PFN felt it needs to know the impact to its Aboriginal rights before discussion on mitigation.
PFN noted the specific environmental concern about the Port San Juan and Pacheena Beach and campground. Much of the PFN economic development is about tourism and destruction of the beach would impact the economy. PFN wants equipment or a vessel in the Bay to enable them to “attack” a spill immediately, given it is so shallow. The former government dock used to have a larger tug. Are there vessels or other equipment available to be kept here?
PFN legal counsel reiterated the need to explore the impact to PFN’s rights before discussing any mitigation measures. Safety issues with Swiftsure Bank were identified. KMC suggested that PFN (Kevin Neary/Jeff Jones) work with KMC to develop a protocol for ships calling at Westridge to raise awareness about the interaction at Swiftsure Bank. KMC also identified the opportunity to equip vessels with AIS systems to “see” the ships coming.
PFN queried KMC about the ability to move tankers transiting over Swiftsure Bank. KMC noted that this is an international shipping lane and the federal government (TC) is better placed to address the matter. KMC queried if the matter related to fishing rights in this area was raised in treaty; PFN confirmed that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not been at the table.
Action: TC to send copies of the 2001 and 2006 traffic separation scheme maps and PowerPoint presentation.
TERMPOL Workshop Page 4 of 4 April 17, 2014