DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX 1.0-1 Navigation Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX 1.0-1 Navigation Study APPENDIX 1.0-1 Navigation Study WESPAC TILBURY LNG CARGO LOADING AND MARINE TRANSIT RISK ASSESSMENT Termpol Element 3.13 Risk Assessment WesPac Midstream LLC Report No.: 10096498, Rev. 2 Document No.: 10096498-1 Date: 2018-08-23 Project name: Wespac Tilbury LNG Cargo Loading and Marine DNV GL (U.S.A.), Inc. Transit Risk Assessment Oil & Gas Services Report title: Termpol Element 3.13 Risk Assessment 1400 Ravello Drive Customer: WesPac Midstream LLC Katy, TX 77449 Date of issue: 2018-08-23 United States Project No.: 10096498-1 Tel: +1 281 396 1000 Organisation unit: Oil & Gas Services Report No.: 10096498, Rev. 2 Document No.: 1FNC5OH-4 Objective: This risk assessment is prepare to satisfy the requirements of TERMPOL Section 3.13, General Risk Analysis and Intended Methods of Reducing Risks for the propsed WesPac Midstream, LLC. LNG facility on Tilbury Island, Delta, British Columbia, Canada. Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by: Tatiana Norman Cheryl Stahl Felipe Sodre Prinicipal Consultant Senior Principal Consultant Head of Section Performance Risk Managment ☐ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Keywords:LNG, TERMPOL, Navigation Risk, Terminal ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL Risk, Loading QRA ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☒ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible. Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by 0 2018-07-17 First issue DFOL CSTAHL FSOD 1 2018-08-10 Revised to include Phase II Operations TNORM CSTAHL FSOD 2 2018-08-23 Revised Executive Summary TNORM CSTAHL FSOD DNV GL – Report No. 10096498, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Scope . ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Report Structure ............................................................................................................. 6 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 7 Background Information .......................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Marine Transit QRA ......................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Project Vessel Specifications .......................................................................................... 22 4.3 LNG Cargo Loading ....................................................................................................... 26 Risk Controls Incorporated in the Analysis ............................................................................... 33 5.1 Risk Controls for Transit ................................................................................................ 33 5.2 Risk Controls for Cargo Loading ...................................................................................... 33 Frequency Assessment .......................................................................................................... 35 6.1 Transit Frequency Assessment ....................................................................................... 35 6.2 Berth Frequency Assessment.......................................................................................... 40 Consequence Assessment ...................................................................................................... 42 7.1 Transit Consequence Results .......................................................................................... 42 7.2 Berth Consequence Results ............................................................................................ 43 Risk Results ......................................................................................................................... 46 8.1 Risk Criteria ................................................................................................................. 46 8.2 Location-Specific Individual Risk ..................................................................................... 47 8.3 Marine Transit Risk Results ............................................................................................ 47 8.4 Cargo Loading Risk ....................................................................................................... 49 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 53 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 54 References .......................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix A Hazard Identification Workshop Report Appendix B Description of MARCS Model Appendix C Methodology Appendix D Frequency and Consequence Study Basis Appendix E Frequency Results Appendix F Loss of Containment Methodology Appendix G Consequence Results Appendix H Risk Results DNV GL – Report No. 10096498, Rev. 2 – www.dnvgl.com Page ii Figures Figure 2-1: Proposed Location of WesPac Tilbury Terminal ..................................................................... 3 Figure 3-1: Risk Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................... 7 Figure 4-1: Segment 1 – Juan de Fuca Strait (CHS Chart 3606, Ref. /9/) ................................................. 9 Figure 4-2: Segment 2 – Haro Strait (CHS Chart 3462, Ref. /10/) ........................................................ 10 Figure 4-3: Segment 3 – Georgia Strait (CHS Chart 3463, Ref. /11/) .................................................... 11 Figure 4-4: Segment 4 – Fraser River (CHS Chart 3490, Ref. /12/) ....................................................... 11 Figure 4-5: Turn Point Special Operating Area (CHS Chart 3462, Ref. /10/) ........................................... 13 Figure 4-6 Clear Transit Areas (Ref /13/) .......................................................................................... 14 Figure 4-7: Study Area and Segments Defined in MARCS ..................................................................... 17 Figure 4-8: Juan de Fuca Strait – Georgia Strait Cross Sections ............................................................ 18 Figure 4-9: Fraser River Cross Sections ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 4-10: Number of Transits and Normalized Distribution of Vessel Types per Cross Section ............... 19 Figure 4-11: Traffic Density in the Study Area .................................................................................... 20 Figure 4-12: Membrane System Insulation ......................................................................................... 23 Figure 4-13: Structural View of an LNG Export Carrier with Membrane-type Tanks .................................. 24 Figure 4-14: Profile View of Typical LNG Bunker Vessel with C-type Tanks ............................................. 24 Figure 4-15: Cross Sectional View of C-type Tanks .............................................................................. 25 Figure 4-16: Locations of Existing and Proposed Facilities (Ref. /21/) .................................................... 27 Figure 4-17: Berthing Dolphins During Loading ................................................................................... 28 Figure 4-18: Central Monitoring Screen during LNG Export Carrier Berthing ........................................... 30 Figure 4-19: Vessel Approach Display Board ...................................................................................... 30 Figure 4-20: Central Monitoring Screen with LNG Export Carrier at Berth ............................................... 31 Figure 6-1: Estimated Incident Frequency for Laden Project Vessels ...................................................... 37 Figure 6-2: Loss of Containment Frequency during Transit ................................................................... 39 Figure 6-3: Frequency of LOC from a Passing Vessel Strike (per year) ................................................... 41 Figure 8-1 Summary of BCOGC Risk Criteria ..................................................................................... 46 Figure 8-2: Transit LSIR in Segments 1 to 3 ....................................................................................... 47 Figure 8-3: Transit LSIR in Segment 4, Fraser River ............................................................................ 48 Figure 8-4: LSIR Contours for Cargo Loading...................................................................................... 49 Figure 8-5: LSIR at the Property Boundary ........................................................................................ 50 Figure 8-6: Locations of Risk Ranking Points ...................................................................................... 51 Figure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5-13 Draft Marine HNS Response Manual
    Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Helsinki Commission HELCOM 42-2021 Online meeting, 17-18 March 2021 Document title Draft Marine HNS Response Manual Code 5-13 Category DEC Agenda Item 5 - Matters arising from the subsidiary bodies Submission date 25.2.2021 Submitted by Executive Secretary Reference Outcome of HOD 59-2020, paragraph 6.73 Background In the framework of the WestMOPoCo project (DG ECHO funding), CEDRE (Centre de Documentation, de Recherche et d'Expérimentations sur les Pollutions Accidentelles des Eaux/Center for Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution), ISPRA (Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) and ITOPF (International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd) have developed the draft Multi-regional Marine HNS Response Manual (Bonn Agreement, HELCOM, REMPEC), taking also into account input by the Response Working Group as well as the Bonn Agreement and REMPEC. RESPONSE 28-2020 agreed on the draft Marine HNS Response Manual and HOD 59-2020 subsequently approved it, recognizing that certain non-substantial aspects of the draft Manual are still to be finalized. Following HOD 59-2020 the Manual has undergone a review, focusing on editorials and the mentioned non- substantial aspects and the final version can be found attached. A final editorial review and formatting will be undertaken by the Secretariat and the WestMOPoCo project team before publication of the adopted Manual. Action requested The Meeting is invited to adopt the draft Multi-regional Marine HNS Response Manual, which will replace the current HELCOM Response Manual Volume 2. Page 1 of 1 MARINE HNS RESPONSE MANUAL Multi-regional Bonn Agreement, HELCOM, REMPEC Disclaimer All material produced under West MOPoCo project is available free of charge and shall not be used for any commercial purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance Document March 2017 – 15-1623 Table of Contents Ii
    PROJECT NO.: 15-1623 |MARCH 2017 Submitted to: Submitted by: Transport Canada Dillon Consulting Limited 275 Sparks St 1149 Smythe Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5 Suite 200 Fredericton, NB E3B 3H4 Table of Contents i Table of Contents Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of ARA Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Limitations of the ARA Methodology ............................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Source and Type of Oil Spills ............................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Locations and Root Causes of Oil Spills ............................................................................... 2 1.2.3 Consequences of Oil Spills .................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Overview of ARA Methodology 4 2.1 Principles of Risk Management ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Establishing Context ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Definition of Oil Categories ................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Definition of ARA Methodology Study Area ....................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Definition of Spill Volumes
    [Show full text]
  • Terms Applying Only to Narrowboats and the Canals
    TERMS APPLYING ONLY TO NARROWBOATS AND THE CANALS By Jeffrey Casciani-Wood A narrowboat or narrowboat is a boat of a distinctive design, built to fit the narrow canals of Great Britain. Wikipedia This glossary covers terms that apply only to narrowboats and their environs and is included because the author firmly believes that the marine surveyor, in order to do his job properly, needs to understand extensively the background and history of the vessel he is surveying. Abutment The supporting or retaining wall of a brick, concrete or masonry structure, particularly where it joins the item (e.g. bridge girder or arch) which it supports. Advanced Electronic means of managing the charge to the batteries from the Alternator engine's alternator(s). Ensures that the batteries are more fully charged Controller and can increase useful battery life. Aegre Tidal bore or wave which is set up by the first of a flood tide as it runs up the river Trent and the word is sometimes spelt Aegir. Air Draught The overall height of a vessel measured from the water line to the highest fixed part of the superstructure. Ait A small island in the upper reaches of the river Thames and the word is sometimes spelt eyot. Anærobes Micro organisms, many exceedingly dangerous to human health, that live in the absence of free oxygen and often to be found in the condensate water settled at the bottom of diesel fuel tanks. Care is required when bleeding a fuel/water separator or when cleaning out fuel tank as their presence can lead to fuel oil problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Center, 28 Upper Mckinley Rd. Mckinley Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634, Philippines Tel
    Intellectual Property Center, 28 Upper McKinley Rd. McKinley Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634, Philippines Tel. No. 238-6300 Website: http://www.ipophil.gov.ph e-mail: [email protected] Publication Date: April 10, 2017 1 ALLOWED MARKS PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION .................................................................................................... 2 1.1 ALLOWED NATIONAL MARKS ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Intellectual Property Center, 28 Upper McKinley Rd. McKinley Hill Town Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City 1634, Philippines Tel. No. 238-6300 Website: http://www.ipophil.gov.ph e-mail: [email protected] Publication Date: April 10, 2017 1 ALLOWED MARKS PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION 1.1 Allowed national marks Application No. Filing Date Mark Applicant Nice class(es) Number 10 SUZUKI MOTOR 1 4/2014/00505828 December KATANA 12 CORPORATION [JP] 2014 18 March WHYTE AND MACKAY 2 4/2015/00002962 JURA ORIGIN 33 2015 LIMITED [UK] 18 March WHYTE AND MACKAY 3 4/2015/00002964 JURA JOURNEY 33 2015 LIMITED [UK] 18 March WHYTE AND MACKAY 4 4/2015/00002965 JURA DESTINY 33 2015 LIMITED [UK] 8 April MEDILINK NETWORK, MEDILINK NETWORK INC. 5 4/2015/00003771 35 and36 2015 INC. [PH] 4 August DALE'S EVERYDAY GUIDE2GREATNESS, INC. 6 4/2015/00008802 30 2015 COFFEE [PH] 13 August PT PURINUSA 7 4/2015/00009199 NICE 3 2015 EKAPERSADA [ID] 14 STAR PAPER 8 4/2015/00014189 December DIAMOND 28 CORPORATION [PH] 2015 BIOCLEANER 29 March 9 4/2016/00003290 FASTER, GREENER, BIOCLEANER, INC. [US] 40 2016 CHEAPER 4 May KEYSTONE LODGING 10 4/2016/00004740 MAISON ALBAR 43 2016 HOLDINGS LIMITED [KY] 1 June SHARE.LIFE.OUTDOO TRAIL ADVENTOURS INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity Underway
    NEW CONSTRUCTION • REPAIRS • CONVERSIONS 2200 Nelson Street, Panama City, FL 32401 Email: [email protected] www.easternshipbuilding.com TEL: 850-896-9869 Diversity Visit Us at Booth #3115 Underway Dec. 4-6 in We look forward to serving you in 2019 and beyond! New Orleans Michael Coupland Diversity2019-5-PM8.25x11.125.indd 1 5/22/2019 10:19:27 PM simple isn't always easy... But furuno radars are a simple choice Your objective is simple…Deliver your vessel and its contents safely and on time. While it might sound simple, we know it’s not easy! Whether you’re navigating the open ocean, busy harbors, or through congested inland waterways, being aware of your surroundings is paramount. Your number one line of defense is a Radar you can rely on, from a company you can depend on. Furuno’s award winning Radar technology is built to perform and withstand the harshest environments, keeping you, your crew and your precious cargo safe. With unique application features like ACE (Automatic Clutter Elimination), Target Analyzer, and Fast Target Tracking, Furuno Radars will help make that simple objective easier to achieve. Ultra High Definition Radar FAR22x8BB Series FR19x8VBB Series FAR15x8 Series www.furunousa.com U10 - Simple Isnt Always Easy - Professional Mariner.indd 1 3/1/19 3:46 PM Annual 2019 Issue #236 22 Features 35 Tug construction rebounding, but hold the champagne ...............4 Industry closely watching hybrid tug performance ...........................9 Review of new tugboats Delta Teresa Baydelta Maritime, San Francisco ...................................................... 12 Ralph/Capt. Robb Harbor Docking & Towing, Lake Charles, La. ...................................... 17 Samantha S.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Tow Vessel "Abeille Bourbon" UT-512 Design
    Technological challenges for Arctic Shipping Increased traffic in the Barents Sea requires more and better emergency response The level of communication services in the Arctic region, especially the polar cap, is resources. Safety at sea has three major elements; rescue of people, prevention severely limited due to lack of ground infrastructure and rather poor or non-existent and mitigation of environmental pollution and salvage of properties. All actors in geostationary satellite (GEO) coverage of latitudes beyond ~75°N. Beyond 75°N the Arctic shipping and offshore activities must pay particular attention to escape, main satellite communication system available today is Iridium offering evacuation and rescue of ship and rig personnel. The petroleum industry is maximum available data rates of 128 kbps, which is not sufficient to meet predicted investing into studies on prevention of oil spill and ways of mitigating capacity demands in the future until the next generation satellite communication consequences if an oil spill occurs. Salvage of property (ships or offshore systems are implemented. A new satellite system based on High Elliptical Orbit (HEO) structures) is in most cases done by commercial actors. Due to the lack of satellites and/or hybrid satellite/terrestrial systems are potential technological infrastructure and the harsh environment response operations will be challenging solutions to this identified gap. in Arctic waters. The Norwegian government is improving SAR capabilities through the procurement of new All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (AWSARH). The new helicopters of the AW101 type have higher speed and longer endurance than the old Sea King helicopters used by the air force in SAR operations.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Emergency Towing Capabilities in Lithuania 2015
    EMERGENCY TOWING CAPABILITIES IN LITHUANIA Igor Kuzmenko Lietuvos maritime academy Introductory words It is axiomatic that lifesaving takes precedence over salvage –but saving the ship may also be the best means of saving her passengers and crew. International Maritime Organization Maritime Safety Committee MSC.1/Circ.1183 31 May 2006 Introductory words “Saving a vessel may be the best means of saving the lives aboard the vessel” IAMSAR manual, Volume I , Chapter 5.3.14 The traffic in the Baltic Sea According to the data of the HELCOM AIS there are about 2,000 ships in the Baltic marine area at any given moment, and each month around 3,500–5,000 ships operating in the waters of the Baltic Sea. HELCOM Recommendation According to the Helsinki Commission recommendation 28E/12 Every sub- region should have adequate emergency towing capacity to be able to handle the largest vessels sailing in the region in rough sea conditions (e.g. Beaufort 10-12 in the Baltic Sea). Spatial allocation and preparedness should correspond to the time limits for approaching and securing a ship in distress along the major shipping lane(s) in the sub-region before it reaches shallow waters. Emergency towing operations On 2 February 2011 general cargo vessel Marion K suffered mechanical breakdown some 2 nautical miles west of Butinge oil terminal and asked for assistance. MRCC of the Lithuanian NAVY request assistance from private towing company Towmar Smit Baltic. Tug TAK-9 tow disabled vessel to Klaipeda port. Emergency towing operations On 15 February 2012 the cargo (timber) ship Phantom experienced a movement of the cargo on deck and listed about 40 degrees.
    [Show full text]
  • HSC Plan 2016
    SAN FRANCISCO, SAN PABLO AND SUISUN BAYS HARBOR SAFETY PLAN Voted on by the Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region June 9, 2016 Pursuant to the California Oil Spill and Prevention Act of 1990 Submitted by the Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region c/o Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region 505 Beach Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94133-1131 Telephone: (415) 441-7988 [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................... iii Harbor Safety Committee Organization ................................................................ v Executive Summary ........................................................................................... viii I. Geographic Boundaries ......................................................................... 1 II. General Weather, Currents and Tides ................................................... 3 III. Aids to Navigation .............................................................................. 18 IV. Anchorages .......................................................................................... 19 V. Surveys, Charts and Dredging ............................................................. 23 VI. Contingency Routing ........................................................................... 27 VII. Vessel Speed and Traffic Patterns ....................................................... 29 VIII. Accidents and Near-Accidents ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Contingency Planning in Ports 1
    MONALISA 2.0 – Activity 4 Guidelines for Contingency Planning in Ports Document No: MONALISA 2 0_D4.1.1 MONALISA 2.0 - GUIDELINES FOR CONTINGENCY PLANNING IN PORTS 1 Table of Contents Page 1 Document summary ............................................................................................... 6 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Preliminary considerations ............................................................................. 7 2.2 Analysis of international law about contingency plans to be made available at ports ................................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Analysis of European legislation on port safety and security ......................... 12 2.4 Analysis of the organisation for responding to emergencies in European Union ports ..................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Questionnaire concerning analysis of the existing Regulations of each EU country about port safety ............................................................. 14 2.4.2 Questionnaire concerning analysis of the emergency/contingencies Plans of the major ports in each country of the European Union ...... 15 2.5 Other guidelines or recommendations regarding port safety that any institution or international organization has published ................................. 17 3 Potential risks in a port which require the implementation
    [Show full text]
  • Cook Inlet Risk Assessment Final Report I
    January 27, 2015 Revision 1 Cook Inlet Risk Assessment Final Report i Cook Inlet Risk Assessment Final Report January 27, 2015 (Revision 1) Developed by: Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC a nd Pearson Consulting, LLC Cook Inlet Risk Assessment Final Report ii Executive Summary The Cook Inlet Risk Assessment (CIRA) was initiated and led by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Coast Guard, and Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council (Cook Inlet RCAC) from 2011-2014. These parties comprised the Management Team for the project. A multi-stakeholder Advisory Panel provided input throughout the process. The risk assessment was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved collecting baseline information about the risks of marine accidents in Cook Inlet, including studies of vessel traffic, accident causality, and potential spill consequences. This information informed the Advisory Panel’s consideration of potential risk reduction options. The second phase of the risk assessment included technical analyses to provide more information regarding selected risk reduction options. This report summarizes the technical analyses and describes the final recommendations of the Advisory Panel. All recommendations were developed based on group consensus. The Advisory Panel considered 21 potential risk reduction options compiled through a public solicitation process as part of the CIRA, Advisory Panel members, and previous processes and forums related to navigational safety on Cook Inlet. This multi-stakeholder group ultimately recommended 13 risk reduction options to maintain and enhance the level of risk mitigation already achieved on Cook Inlet’s waters. Where these efforts are already underway, they should be sustained and, in some cases, enhanced or expanded within the Inlet.
    [Show full text]
  • Serving & Upholding
    2011 SINGAPORE SHIPPING ASSOCIATION / ANNUAL REVIEW 2010 Serving & Upholding SSA Annual Review 2010/2011 1 CONTENTS www.swire.com.sg Headquartered in Singapore - President’s Report - 3 Providing Integrated Services to Global Clients Council Members 2011/2013 - 7 Organisational Structure - 8 SSA Committees 2011/2013 - 9 Activities Report - 13 Port Statistics - 37 SSA Members - 38 Membership Particulars & Fleet Statistics - 42 - Listing of Ordinary Members - 43 - Listing of Associate Members - 89 Offshore Support SINGAPORE SHIPPING ASSOCIATION 59 Tras Street, Singapore 078998 Tel 6222 5238 I Fax 6222 5527 Email [email protected] Environmental Solutions Salvage Web www.ssa.org .sg Special thanks to our statistics contributors, advertisers, and the following companies for giving us permission to use their photographs: AET Tankers Pte Ltd, BW Maritime Pte Ltd, Epic Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd, Jaya Holdings, Jurong Port Pte Ltd, Mentum.no, NTUC, Rickmers Trust Management Pte Ltd, Rickmers Shipmanagement (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Singapore Tourism Board, Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (Pte) Ltd, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. This publication is published by the Singapore Shipping Association. No contents may be reproduced in part or in whole without the prior consent of the publisher. MICA (P) 054/07/2011 Wind Farm Installation Marine Seismic Support 2 SSA Annual Review 2010/2011 SSA Annual Review 2010/2011 3 PRESIDENT’S REPORT 2010/2011 ur he global economic climate today is very much an improved one as compared with the global economic recession experienced in 2009. Continued rapid OMission T economic developments and expansion in countries, such as China, India and Vietnam, have largely played key roles in maintaining buoyancy in the supply AS AN ASSOCIATION and demand of shipping services, particularly in Asia in the last one and a half years.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 12-7 Marine Terminal and Marine Shipping Risk
    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.
    [Show full text]