APPENDIX B: R. Kuprewicz, Accufacts Response to Trans Mountain’s Submission to NEB to the Sur-Reply Evidence of Coldwater Indian Band Hearing Order No. MH-013-2018 8151 164th Ave NE Accufacts Inc. Redmond, WA 98052 “Clear Knowledge in the Over Information Age” Ph (425) 802-1200 Fax (805) 980-4204 [email protected] May 8, 2018 To: Chief Lee Spahan Coldwater Indian Band #301, 230 Street Coldwater Reserve P.O. Box 4600, Station Main Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 Via email: [email protected] Re: Accufacts Response to Trans Mountain’s Submission to NEB.1 Accufacts Inc. (“Accufacts”) was recently asked to review a submission response from Trans Mountain representatives (“Trans Mountain Response”) attempting to discredit a previous Accufacts report prepared for the Coldwater Indian Band concerning several pipeline route alternatives for the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion project. Accufacts finds Trans Mountain’s Response to be lacking important critical details to support their many misstatements, assumptions, and route conclusions based on their risk assessments that can have grave consequences for the Coldwater Indian Band (“Coldwater”). To be brief, I focus on just three flawed approaches, from many misleading or false characterizations in the Trans Mountain Response in an obvious attempt to try to discredit Accufacts. The Trans Mountain Response appears to attempt to bias toward a preordained pipeline route selection rather than supply missing critical data and proper analysis to permit a more informed independent decision concerning pipeline route selection that could affect Coldwater. Accufacts takes very seriously our responsibility to remain neutral, objective, and factual on such an important issue as pipeline routing. 1) The Trans Mountain Report asserts that the West Alternative Route is at higher risk because of unsubstantiated landslide risks that threaten the Coldwater River. Accufacts spent considerable effort in our original report focusing on the need to supply more specific information about possible landslide risks associated with the West Alternative, especially since an existing gas pipeline and important fiber optic infrastructure have successful 1 Prepared by Alex Baumgard, BCG Engineering, Paul Huddleston, Kinder Morgan Canada, John Macleod, Trans Mountain, and Jim Mihel, Dynamic Risk Assessment, “Reply to Accufacts Report to Coldwater Indian Band dated August 3, 2016,” dated November 10, 2016 (“Document”). Accufacts Inc. Page 1 of 4 operated without landslide caused failure in this region. Trans Mountain’s Response states, “the risk associated with the West Alternative route represents more than double the risk of either of the other two route alternatives.”2 No information provided to date has demonstrated that the West Alternative is not feasible for pipeline routing. Geotechnical analysis should be able to clearly identify specific areas of the West Alternative that are at realistic risk to massive landslide, if any, and why, as well as supply sufficient backup detail to permit an independent verification of such an important claim. It should be a very simple matter for Trans Mountain to show specifically whether the West Alternative has actual bona fide massive landslide risk, whether such areas if they exist could be mitigated/bypassed, and whether the risk values assigned are even relevant or meaningful. An experienced pipeliner does not have to perform a risk analysis to uncover misrepresentations as to landslide threats for pipeline routing. This is especially important when the so called risk analysis is based on incomplete, or misleading assumptions that might bias what should be an independent, easily demonstrable outcome, if more complete and relevant data were provided in such a risk analysis. 2) The argument by Trans Mountain to “minimize the number of watercourse crossings” biases the route risks analysis and overstates environmental risks associated with such crossings.3 Not including critical drinking water supply aquifers, especially the recharge zone of the critical aquifer associated with Coldwater, is a serious deficiency in any environmental hazard/risk assessment concerning pipeline routing. Critical drinking water supply aquifers play such an important role in pipeline safety that these important sites are specifically addressed in U.S. federal pipeline safety regulations that lead Canadian pipeline safety regulations in the prudent application of pipeline integrity management.4 Failure to consider the relevant risks in such critical aquifer zones underscores the deficiencies in implementing sound pipeline safety integrity management approaches in Canada. Concerning the attempt to avoid river crossings, there are thousands of pipeline water crossings in North America and most of these pipelines are operated with a high level of responsibility that can easily validate that such crossings are appropriate and not a threat to critical water supply sources. Horizontal Directional Drilling, or HDD, for example, can be safely performed with the highest degree of integrity that should be easily demonstrated by frank, factual, and detailed data, which has not been identified in Trans Mountain’s risk assessment for the Coldwater Indian Band. For the record, HDD is often the preferred mechanism for routing a pipeline in highly sensitive environmental areas such as river crossings. Trans Mountain’s risk arguments 2 Ibid., page 4. 3 Ibid., page 5. 4 U.S. 49CFR§195.6 Unusually Sensitive Areas (USAs). Accufacts Inc. Page 2 of 4 pertaining to river crossings are misleading and appear to overstate risks associated with pipeline river crossings. 3) Attempts to dismiss Accufacts’ observations concerning the misuse of third party risks assignments for the possible pipeline route impacting Coldwater are wrong and irrelevant. The Trans Mountain Report attempts to discredit Accufacts’ observations related to third party risks as they apply to the specific proposed routes that could impact Coldwater by stating: “A casual inspection of the industry incident data would show that this threat is among the most significant of all failure threats for transmission pipelines.”5 Assigning third party risk based on Canada-wide observations for the specific highly remote route alternatives that could impact Coldwater are inappropriate and meaningless. Assertions that third party damage was a leading cause of transmission pipeline failures were also made in the U.S., but were easily proven to be wrong when the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, or PHMSA, improved their pipeline failure reporting, and made their databases more open and transparent to the public.6 While Canada may be slower to implement effective one-call pipeline safety regulations, it can be easily shown that third party damage risks in the Coldwater region are overstated. Such misinformation attempts should not be permitted, and they illustrate some of the problems associated with risk assessment approaches for specific segments of a proposed pipeline route. Conclusion Given the lack of critical detail and numerous misrepresentations by Trans Mountain concerning pipeline route selection in the Coldwater Indian Band region, I would recommend that Coldwater look to an NEB process that supplies the missing critical data. It is the responsibility of Trans Mountain to supply such missing data to support their inadequate risk assessment conclusions on the Coldwater route selection. Without such information, a neutral, objective, and transparent verification of the best route selection for Coldwater cannot be made. Information supplied to date by Trans Mountain demonstrates bias on the Trans Mountain Expansion route that clearly fails to respect the sovereign right of the Coldwater Indian Band. I would council, given my many decades of experience concerning pipeline routing, that the shortest path between two points is seldom the cheapest nor the fastest, and definitely not the safest. The Trans Mountain Report fails to provide sufficient detail to support their critical assumptions and findings regarding a prudent pipeline route that could affect Coldwater. It remains to be proven by Trans Mountain whether the West Alternative is truly a bona fide risk to 5 Ibid., page 8. 6 PHMSA website, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/phmsa-data-and-statistics. Accufacts Inc. Page 3 of 4 the Coldwater Indian Band given the further misrepresentations associated with threats to the Coldwater River as compared to risk associated with a sole source recharge aquifer exposed to possible dilbit contamination from a pipeline. Richard B. Kuprewicz, President, Accufacts Inc Accufacts Inc. Page 4 of 4 Curriculum Vitae. Richard B. Kuprewicz 8151 164th Ave NE Redmond, WA 98052 Tel: 425-802-1200 (Office) E- mail: [email protected] Profile: As president of Accufacts Inc., I specialize in gas and liquid pipeline investigation, auditing, risk management, siting, construction, design, operation, maintenance, training, SCADA, leak detection, management review, emergency response, and regulatory development and compliance. I have consulted for various local, state and federal agencies, NGOs, the public, and pipeline industry members on pipeline regulation, operation and design, with particular emphasis on operation in unusually sensitive areas of high population density or environmental sensitivity. Employment: Accufacts Inc. 1999 – Present Pipeline regulatory advisor, incident investigator, and expert witness on all matters related to gas