Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Application Pursuant to Sections 52, 58 and Part IV of the National Energy Board Act (
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Enbridge Response to NEB IR No. 2 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Page 1 of 23 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Application pursuant to sections 52, 58 and Part IV of the National Energy Board Act (“Application”) for Enbridge Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (“Project”) Hearing Order OH-001-2013 NEB File No. OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2012-08 02 Response to NEB IR No.2 Engineering 2.1 Isolation Valves Reference: i) Enbridge Response to NEB Information Request 1.6 (PDF page 5 of 71, A3H2W1); ii) Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Preliminary Feasibility Report , Volume I, Appendix 7-3 (PDF page 3 of 20, A3E2W2); iii) HDD Preliminary Feasibility Report, Volume I, Appendix 7-3 (PDF page 12 of 20, A3E2W2); iv) Application, Volume II Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA), Section 5 Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting, page 5-10 (PDF page 38 of 129, A3E2X9); v) Application, Volume II ESA, Section 5 Environmental and Socio- Economic Setting, pages 5-21 to 5-26 (PDF pages 49-54 of 129, A3E2X9); vi) Application, Volume IIA ESA, Appendix 6 Aquatic Assessment, Table 2, page 6 ( PDF page 10 of 35, A3E2Z8); vii) Application, Volume IIA ESA, Appendix 10, Table A2, page A-10 (PDF page 88 of 119, A3E3A8); and viii) CSA-Z662-11 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Clause 4.4.3. Preamble: Reference i) states that Enbridge does not consider the Battle River to be a major water course crossing as defined in Clause 4.4.8 of CSA-Z662-11. With reference to Clause 4.4.8 of CSA Z662-11, at this time, Enbridge uses the description of a major watercourse as that which has a normal high water level of 30 metres (m) or greater. The evaluation of the Battle River does not meet Enbridge Response to NEB IR No. 2 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Page 2 of 23 this condition. Reference ii) indicates that the Battle River is a major water way. Specifically, the HDD Feasibility Report states that: Within the scope of this project, the pipeline will cross numerous roads, a railway, utilities, below and above grade power lines, and waterways, both minor (creeks), and major (the Battle River). Reference iii) indicates that the Battle River is approximately 30 m wide and flowing northeast at the crossing location with approximately 2-3 m high banks on either side, measured from the water table. Reference iv) identifies the Battle River as a direct tributary to the North Saskatchewan River. The reference also indicates that the Battle River Basin has over 100 per cent of its flow available for diversion. References v) and vi) describe the fish species that may occur in the Battle River near the proposed pipeline route, which include several sport fish and potential for sensitive fish species. Reference vii) provides a list of 22 registered water licenses 10 km downstream of Battle River. Enbridge states in reference i) that the sectionalized segment is determined using the elevation profile and definition of high consequence areas (HCAs), including water bodies such as the Battle River. Enbridge also states that it models outflows in the event of a leak, and that valve locations are selected such that flow into the HCAs is limited below Enbridge thresholds. Reference viii) specifies the minimum design requirements for valve location and spacing. Section 4.4.3 specifies that a company shall perform an engineering assessment to determine the number and spacing of sectionalizing valves to be installed. Request: Please provide: a) an explanation as to why Enbridge indicated in Reference i) that the Battle River is not a major water course crossing but the HDD Preliminary Feasibility Report considers it to be a major waterway; b) evidence with references to support Enbridge’s definition of a major water course as one which has a normal high water level of 30 metres or greater; c) Enbridge’s definition and rationale for defining the Battle River as a HCA; Enbridge Response to NEB IR No. 2 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Page 3 of 23 d) the threshold amount of flow into HCAs that Enbridge considered in selecting the locations of the isolation valves, and rationale for selecting this threshold amount; e) an engineering assessment that demonstrates that a spill near the Battle River would not present a risk to either water license owners or to the environment. The assessment shall account for the environmental impacts to each element (including water quality and fish species) on the river downstream of the crossing; and f) drain down volume plots for each proposed valve segment and an engineering assessment as per section 4.4.3 of CSA Z662.11 which includes the criteria Enbridge used to select the preliminary locations for isolation valves. Response: a) For the purposes of the Enbridge Intelligent Valve Placement (“IVP”) process, a major watercourse is defined as that which has a normal high water level of 30 m or greater. This definition applies to the IVP process only, and is utilized to provide guidance to Clause 4.4.8 of CSA Z662-11. The term “major” in other documents, including the HDD Feasibility Report is utilized as a descriptor only, and is not meant to comply to Clause 4.4.8 of CSA Z662-11. b) For the purposes of the IVP analyses, Enbridge has adopted the US definition of a major watercourse in 49 CFR 195.260 (e). c) For the purposes of the IVP analyses, the Battle River does not meet the HCA criteria. d) Enbridge objects to filing the information requested on the ground that it is commercially sensitive and proprietary information that Enbridge has consistently treated as confidential. e) Enbridge cannot provide an engineering assessment that demonstrates a spill near the Battle River would not present a risk to the water license owners or to the environment. However, Enbridge is committed to the protection of the environment and develops emergency response plans for all releases. Every release is unique and the response depends on the volume and type of product released, the location of the incident, the time of year, climatic conditions at the time of the incident, as well as the nature and characteristics of the soils, geology, surface waters, and groundwater. Immediately upon discovery of a release Enbridge initiates emergency response protocols and uses internal and external resources to address the circumstances of the incident. The fully developed response plan for any incident of significance is developed in consultation with the National Enbridge Response to NEB IR No. 2 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Page 4 of 23 Energy Board (“NEB” or “Board”) and the other applicable regulatory agencies. The response plan considers stakeholder and regional priorities and includes site specific strategies. The plan for a release of significance may include, but not necessarily be limited to, a resources at risk assessment to understand the environmental and cultural receptors in the area; spill trajectory modeling to understand potential waterway impacts; a Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (“SCAT”) assessment to assess, catalog, prioritize, and plan shoreline cleanup activities; a submerged oil plan (if applicable); activation of our third party wildlife support unit to deter wildlife from the area as well as capture and clean affected wildlife; activation of our third party air monitoring support to assess and track air quality; generation of a waste management plan to manage or treat the materials generated from the response; and surface and groundwater monitoring plans to track to water impacts. Enbridge works with the NEB and applicable regulators to implement a site specific remedial action through the NEB Remediation Process to remediate all impacts to the environment in compliance with all regulatory requirements. f) Enbridge objects to filing the information requested on the ground that it is commercially sensitive and proprietary information that Enbridge has consistently treated as confidential. Enbridge Response to NEB IR No. 2 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Page 5 of 23 Consultation 2.2 Consultation with Round Hill Church Reference: i) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 6, Table 6.26, page 6-139 (PDF page 139 of 229), A3E2Y0); and ii) Enbridge Response to NEB Information Request No. 1.16 (PDF page 23 of 71, A3H2W0). Preamble: Reference i) indicates that Round Hill Church may experience disturbance during construction. The reference further indicates that Enbridge plans to consult with church officials to identify peak-use periods and to establish appropriate construction schedules. Reference ii) states that Enbridge has not consulted with Round Hill Church as it is not a directly affected stakeholder. Request: Please provide: a) an update on the consultation activities that have occurred with Round Hill Church; or b) an explanation as to why Round Hill Church has not been consulted with respect to the Project given the information in reference i) above. Response: a) and b) Enbridge did not consult with Round Hill Church prior to the application because the stakeholder was not directly affected by the Project however, a notification package was mailed on November 6, 2012 and an invitation to the open house was mailed on October 22, 2012. The potential impacts that Round Hill Church may experience are construction related which could be mitigated through the implementation of the ESA’s key recommendations and mitigative measures such as: avoiding construction activities during peak hours; scheduling hours of work within communities between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.; fencing off all road and trail entrances to the worksite; and posting warning signs at approaches to the construction site from both directions. Enbridge has consulted with the representative of the church as this individual is an affected stakeholder as a landowner of other directly Enbridge Response to NEB IR No.