Appendix 12-7 Marine Terminal and Marine Shipping Risk
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CA PDF Page 1 of 134 Energy East Pipeline Ltd. Energy East Project Consolidated Application Volume 12: Risk Assessment Appendix 12-7 Marine Terminal and Marine Shipping Risk Assessment May 2016 CA PDF Page 2 of 134 CANAPORT ENERGY EAST MARINE TERMINAL RISK STUDIES Final Termpol Study Report: Element 3.15 Risk Assessment Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A). Inc. Report No.:2014-9452014-9454, Rev. 0 Document No.: PP136750 1-8RSPA3 Date: 2016-02-26 CA PDF Page 3 of 134 Project name: Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal Risk Studies Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Report title: Final Termpol Study Report: Element 3.15 Risk Oil & Gas Assessment Risk Advisory Services Customer: Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A). Inc., 1400 Ravello Dr Contact person: Frederico Allevato Katy, TX 77449 Date of issue: 2016-02-26 United States Project No.: PP136750 Tel: +1 281 396 1000 Organisation unit: Risk Advisory Services Report No.: 2014-9452014-9454, Rev. 0 Document No.: PP136750 1-8RSPA3 Task and objective: Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by: Frederico Allevato Dr. Hamed Hamedifar Cheryl Stahl Senior Consultant Senior Consultant Senior Principal Consultant ☐ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Keywords: ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL Marine Terminal Risk, Crude Oil Spill Risk, Accident ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years Frequency, Risk Controls, Canaport Energy East ☐ No distribution (confidential) Marine Terminal ☐ Secret This report was prepared by DNV GL. Any partial or altered reproduction of, or reference to, the Report by any other party is done at that party’s sole risk, and DNV GL shall have no liability or responsibility for same. This Report was prepared in English, and DNV GL is not responsible for translations into any other language. Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by 0 2016-02-26 Final issue FALL HHAM CSTAHL CA PDF Page 4 of 134 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Objective 3 1.2 Abbreviations and Units 4 1.3 Report Structure 6 2 METHODOLOGY – NAVIGATIONAL RISK ............................................................................. 7 2.1 Scope Overview 7 2.2 Description of Navigation Risk Model 7 2.3 Description of Detailed Crude Oil Spill Volume Estimations 10 3 SYSTEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Route Description 11 3.2 Vessel Handling, Support, and Escort 12 3.3 Tanker Specifications 16 3.4 Terminal Specification 18 3.5 Environmental Data 23 4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................. 25 5 VESSEL TRAFFIC .......................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Traffic Analysis and Statistics 26 5.2 Use of AIS Data and Traffic Pattern by MARCS 32 6 RISK CONTROLS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE ANALYSIS ..................................... 33 6.1 Effect of the Risk Controls Applied in MARCS 34 7 FREQUENCY ASSESSMENT OF CARGO HANDLING AND MARINE TRANSPORT INCIDENTS ....... 44 7.1 Total Marine Transport Incident Frequency 45 7.2 Cargo Spill Accident Frequency for Marine Transport 51 7.3 Cargo Spill Accident Frequency for Cargo Transfer Operations 57 7.4 Trestle Impact Accident Frequency Analysis 59 7.5 Loading Operations Fire and Explosion Frequency 68 8 CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 70 8.1 Conditional Crude Oil Spill Methodology and Assumptions for Marine Transportation 70 8.2 Conditional Crude Oil Spill Probabilities and Volumes 72 8.3 Crude Oil Spill Volume from Loading Operations 76 8.4 Crude Oil Spill Volume from Trestle Impact 77 9 CARGO OIL SPILL RISK ................................................................................................. 79 9.1 Vessel Cargo Oil Spill Risk for Marine Transportation 79 9.2 Cargo Transfer Operations Oil Spill Risk 86 9.3 Total Risk Overview 88 10 MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 89 10.1 Recommendations 90 DNV GL – Report No. 2014-9452014-9454, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page i CA PDF Page 5 of 134 11 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 91 12 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 93 Appendix A Description of the MARCS Model Appendix B HAZID Workshop Appendix C Effectiveness of Risk Reduction Operations DNV GL – Report No. 2014-9452014-9454, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page ii CA PDF Page 6 of 134 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL) proposes to construct and operate a crude oil pipeline system which would provide a means of conveyance for oil producers in the west to transport product to refineries and export terminals in eastern Canada. The subject of this risk assessment is a portion of TransCanada’s proposed system, a new terminal in New Brunswick, Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal (CANMT) (referred to herein as the Project). The terminal will be located on the western shore of the Bay of Fundy, to the southeast of the town and Port of Saint John and southwest of Mispec Point, in the Province of New Brunswick. This report documents a risk assessment conducted to estimate two types of risk: cargo loading risk in terms of spills during oil transfer to the tankers, and marine risk in terms of CANMT vessel collision and grounding. This study was done in conformance with the Canadian Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Transhipment Sites (TERMPOL) Code. The hazards and risks related to the route taken by the CANMT tankers are minimized and mitigated by implemented risk control measures. The risk controls will continue to reduce the frequency of critical situations (e.g. the traffic separation scheme will reduce the frequency of encounters, the critical situation for collision) and reduce the probability of an incident given a critical situation (e.g. pilotage will reduce the probability of collision given an encounter). The following risk reducing measures have been taken into account in the risk assessment: Vessel Traffic Services, Pilotage, Portable Pilot Unit, Electronic Chart Display and Information System / Electronic Navigational Chart, and escort tugs (tethered and non-tethered tugs). A frequency assessment has been conducted for the vessels operating at the terminal, traveling in either the inbound route or the out bound route. The assessment takes into account risk reduction measures and analyzes incident frequency for each case. The incident frequencies have been estimated using the MARCS model, and are calculated for the events of collision, powered grounding, drift grounding, structural failure and fire / explosion. From the incident frequency results calculated in MARCS, the annual frequency of an accident that leads to a loss of containment (LOC) was then calculated. This methodology demonstrates an accurate reprentation of the project site as it provides a site- specific and vessel-specific assessment of LOC. The net effect of this methodology is a reduction in LOC frequencies relative to incident frequencies driven primarily by: • Collision scenarios: LOC frequency calculations are energy based and take into account the impact force of a collision using vessel specifications of the project vessels as well as the actual vessels transiting in the study area. • Grounding scenarios: LOC frequency calculations take into account location-specific bathymetric considerations. The relative lack of hard-bottom in the study area leads to a reduction in the likelihood of LOC should a grounding incident occur. Total incident frequencies for the sailing route were categorized based on the specific ship type and the nature of carrying cargo materials for the inbound and outbound routes. The total annual incident frequency for marine transportation along the main sailing route (not including the route to/from the anchorages) is 4.8 x10-2 for all CANMT related tankers. Incidents where tankers are in ballast, which DNV GL – Report No. 2014-9452014-9454, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 1 CA PDF Page 7 of 134 applies to only inbound tankers, are estimated to occur 4.2 ×10−2 times per year. Incidents for tankers with crude oil cargo are estimated to occur 6.6 ×10−3 times per year. The total cargo spill accident frequency for marine transport of outbound CANMT tankers in the sailing route is 2.8 x10-4 crude oil spill accidents per year. Consistent with the incident frequency of outbound CANMT tankers, drift grounding is the leading accident type that results in a crude oil spill with a frequency of 1.4 x10-4 cargo spill accidents per year. The total cargo spill accident frequency for marine transport of CANMT tankers at berth or in anchorage route is 1.6 x10-4 crude oil spill accidents per year. For these scenarios, power grounding (8.3 x10-5) and collision at berth/anchorage route (7.8 x10-5) are the leading accident types that result in a crude oil spill. The assessment also assessed the risk of spill from loading operations. The annual frequency for this event was found to be 2.1 x10-3 with a credible worst case spill volume of 43 m3. Finally, part of the assessment is to evaluate the collision risk of the shipping fleet