Enbridge Line 9 Reversal

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/oldwhitb/public_html/DurhamCLEAR.ca/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Successful Line 9 Public Meetings

Three public meetings were held in Bowmanville, Whitby & Pickering July 23, 24, 25, 2013. The Powerpoint presentation can be viewed HERE. (Note this is a very large file.) Participants were then asked to express their opinions of Enbridge's pipeline proposal on a questionnaire.

A total of 26 questionnaires were submitted.

Results: Note - Answers do not add up to 26 because not all people answered all questions and a few people indicated duplicate answers.

When did you first hear about line 9?
8  more than a year ago,         15  less than a year ago,         2  ads/information for this meeting

Where did you first find out about Line 9?
9  Newspaper   1  TV    1  radio    11  Email/Internet    4  Stories/ads about this meeting

Have you attended any previous meetings on Line 9?
1 - Enbridge Information Meeting Whitby/Clarington  June 19
1 - NEB information meeting - Ajax Town Hall April 9
2 - DurhamCLEAR Info Mtg -Ajax Town Hall March 21
2 - Enbridge Presentation to Council Meeting    0  Ajax   0  Whitby   3  Regional

Are you opposed to further expansion of the oil sands in Alberta?       21 Yes       2 No

Prior to this meeting, how would you rate your level of knowledge about this issue?
answers were on a 7-point scale with the distribution as follows
very poorly informed    1   3   3   5   9   3   3   highly informed

Assuming that oil will continue to be transported in large quantities, Rank the following options as the most appropriate transportation method for oil?
Totals of all the individual rankings were added together (in brackets) to determine the overall rankings
#1 (34) New ‘modern’ pipeline built farther north away from populated areas and avoiding environmentally sensitive areas
#2 (49) New Pipeline on the current alignment rebuilt to ‘modern’ standards
#3 (64) Rail & Road transport
#4 (66) Current Pipeline “as-is” with increased safety, more valves, better leak detection and emergency response
#5 (87) Current Pipeline “as-is”

Rate Canada’s regulations for transportation of hazardous materials like crude oil:
14  Grossly inadequate     9  Inadequate     2  About Right      0  Too Strict      0  Oppressive

What are your principle concerns about Line 9?
21  Safety and protection of people and their property
23  Protection of the Environment and wildlife habitat
14  Greenhouse gases
10  Economic growth and prosperity

Check as many of these options as you feel appropriate
0    Spills are just a cost of doing business
14  With proper monitoring and better regulation, spills could be virtually eliminated
20  Avoidable spills of hazardous materials should be regarded as criminal acts with executives subject to heavy fines and possibly imprisonment
 

Should the Ontario government require Enbridge to undergo a full Environmental Assessment on these changes to Line 9?       23  Yes      1   No

In regards to Enbridge’s application to reverse the flow of Line 9, the NEB should:
11  deny the application
0    allow the application without conditions
14  allow the application, but with conditions
    13  upgraded to ‘modern’ structural standards
    13  better emergency response times to a spill - how long - 15 min x 3, 30 min x 1, 30-60min x 2
    11  more frequent In Line Inspections and timely correction of any defects
    11  better detection of ‘small’ leaks - 3 barrels per minute or less
    11  increase the number of remotely controlled valves
        8  both banks of all watercourses
        1  average 10 km apart               6  average 5 km apart

In regards to Enbridge’s application to increase the capacity of Line 9 to 300,000 barrels per day, the NEB should:
16  deny the application
0   allow the application without conditions
8   allow the application, but with conditions
    8  upgraded to ‘modern’ structural standards
    6  better emergency response times to a spill - how long _____________________
    6  more frequent In Line Inspections and timely correction of any defects
    4  better detection of ‘small’ leaks - 3 barrels per minute or less
    6  increase the number of remotely controlled valves
        3  both banks of all watercourses
        1  average 10 km apart               3  average 5 km apart

In regards to Enbridge’s application to carry dilbit in Line 9, the NEB should:
15  deny the application
0    allow the application without conditions
7    allow the application, but with conditions
    6  upgraded to ‘modern’ structural standards
    6  better emergency response times to a spill - how long  - 15 min x1,, 30-60 min x 1
    4  more frequent In Line Inspections and timely correction of any defects
    5  better detection of ‘small’ leaks - 3 barrels per minute or less
    5  increase the number of remotely controlled valves
        1  both banks of all watercourses
        1  average 10 km apart               4  average 5 km apart

Following this meeting, do you have a better understanding of crude oil transportion, and the risk of pipeline leaks?      20  Yes        1  No

Great website on Line 9

Another intervenor, Emily Ferguson, has created a great website on Line 9: http://www.line9communities.com/.

It has maps, and information on integrity digs that she assembled by sifting through years of Enbridge's communications with the NEB. Also, there's information about leaks, and a whole lot more.

We want your input on Line 9 to take to the National Energy Board

DurhamCLEAR is hosting a series of public meetings during the week of July 22 in order to provide information on Line 9 and also to gather feedback from ordinary residents and local experts on Line 9.

Three meetings are planned across the Region: 

Tues. July 23, 7:30pm

St Paul’s United Church

178 Church St at Silver St.
BOWMANVILLE

Map Photo

Wed, July 24, 7:30pm

WHITBY Main Library
Room 1

405 Dundas St. W at Henry

Map

Thurs, July 25, 7:30pm

PICKERING Rec Complex
(1867 Valley Farm Road)

O’Brien Room B
Enter off Diefenbaker Ct.
on the E side of the complex

Map


These meetings were part of our request for funding from the NEB and we told them that the feedback from these meetings would be included in our final 'evidence'. We feel that it's important that the public voice is heard above din of technocrats arguing the finer points of pipeline design.

Round 2 - Questions for Enbridge

DurhamCLEAR Followup Information Requests (IR) for Enbridge

July 8, 2013

Reference: A316R3 (these numbers are file numbers for the National Energy Board (NEB)) if interested the entire documentary file including all intervenors can be found HERE.

Response to DurhamCLEAR IR no. 1  - (the numbering below refers to the numbers of the previous set of questions and Enbridge's answers)

2(a)  Given that Enbridge is already paying $600,000.00+ in taxes to local municipalities in Durham Region and given that this will not change if the current proposal is granted,

i) why would it not be more appropriate to pay the municipalities in the Region of Durham a tax based on the volume of the flow?

ii) Please delineate how much is paid to each municipality in the Region of Durham.

Enbridge Answers

Our apologies for the weird formatting and symbols - this was converted from a pdf file. To download the original, click HERE.
Many of the answers refer to other documents most of which can be found in one of these links:

1.       http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/fetch.asp?language=E&ID=A52563
2.       http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/fetch.asp?language=E&ID=A52565
3.       http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/fetch.asp?language=E&ID=A52576
4.       http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/fetch.asp?language=E&ID=A52581

Enbridge Response to Durham Citizens Lobby for Environmental Awareness & Responsibility Inc. ("Durham CLEAR") Information Request No. 1

PROLOGUE: The preambles to and/or premises of several of the information requests include assertions that may not be factually correct. Unless expressly stated otherwise, Enbridge does not concede the accuracy of any preamble or part thereof. Similarly, Enbridge does not concede the relevance of any request to which it has provided a response.

1 The need for the Project (a) Has Enbridge explored alternative scenarios for transportation of crude? If Request: so, what were those alternatives? (b) Has Enbridge investigated the construction of a modern pipeline along Line 9B? If so, what are the results of that investigation? (c) Given the age and construction of Line 9B, Why had Enbridge chosen this proposal rather than construction a new pipeline? Response: (a) Please refer to response to NEB IR 2.3. b - c) Please refer to response to A2A IR 5.j.

2 The potential commercial impacts of the project (a) Please set out the direct economic and commercial benefits of this proposal to Durham Region. (b) Had Enbridge been in communication with the various Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce in the Durham Region? If so, were those communications in writing or in person? If they were in writing, please provide copies?

(a) The Project will allow the pipeline to remain in service, thus continuing its contribution to the Durham Region tax base. The right of way taxes paid in 2012 directly to the Durham Region exceeded $600,000.

(b) Enbridge has been in communication with the following Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce in the Durham Region: • Town of Whitby: Enbridge met with the Chief Executive Officer of the Whitby Chamber of Commerce on Friday, May 24, 2013. At this meeting, Enbridge provided an in-person overview of the proposed Project. In addition, Enbridge outlined the local economic benefits of the proposed Project, and the municipal taxes Enbridge pays to the Town of Whitby annually (approximately $76,000). Enbridge discussed the open house that would be taking place in Whitby on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, and asked assistance from the CEO to spread the word of the open house to its membership. • Bowmanville: Enbridge met with the President and Executive Director of the Clarington Board of Trade on Wednesday, June 19, 2013. Enbridge provided an overview of the Project and economic benefits of the proposed Project, and the municipal taxes Enbridge pays to the Municipality of Clarington annually (approximately $300,000). Enbridge discussed the open house that would be taking place in Bowmanville on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, and asked assistance from the Board of Trade to spread the word of the open house to its membership. Throughout the life of the Project, Enbridge will continue its efforts to meet with all Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce along the ROW.

3 The appropriateness of the rules and Regulation tariff (a) Has consideration been given to compensating the local municipalities for  this proposed project?

(a) No. However, municipalities receive property tax revenue in relation to Response: Line 9. Please refer to response to Durham CLEAR IR 2.a.

4 The potential Environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including the potential effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the proposed project Request:

(a) In Inter Provincial Pipelines (IPL) original submission to the NEB in 1974 "POLICIES, PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT" (OH-1-74 IPL Policies-1.pdf, pg 7- River & Stream Crossings

(b)-3 it states in relation to “Major River Crossings”, "Motorized block valves will be installed on each bank." Where are these block valves located? - which rivers?

Note also on page 27 of the NEB decision (OH-1-74) in 1975 (pg 32 of the pdf), end of 2nd paragraph, it is reiterated that IPL "stated that at major river (navigable stream) crossings circumferential welds would be X-rayed 100 per cent and that motorized block valves would be installed on each river bank."

However on page 43 of the decision the Board stated that "Navigational use of the river as the basis for the identification of "major" river crossings is not necessarily consistent with environmental aspects. The Board feels that what is important is that relevant environmental considerations be taken into account in locating and designing river crossings regardless of whether such crossings should be designated as major or minor from any particular viewpoint."

(b) Durham Region extends for approximately 40 kilometers along the North shore of Lake Ontario. Line 9 runs across the full width of the region and in so doing crosses numerous rivers and streams that flow into the lake. Please provide for each of the following rivers and streams:

i) Maximum flow rates

ii) Time that it would take for oil from a spill to reach Lake Ontario from the time it first reached the water at maximum flow rate

iii) Aquatic life forms that would be affected if oil of any kind were to enter the water of each of these rivers and streams. Note that Line 9 crosses 2, 3, or more branches of each of these, all of which have individual flows and individual potential for spreading an oil leak

Petticoat creek Duffins Creek Carruthers Creek Lynde Creek Pringle Creek Corbett Creek Oshawa Creek Harmony Creek Farewell Creek Black Creek Tooley Creek Darlington Creek Bowmanville Creek Soper Creek Bennett Creek Wilmot Creek Graham Creek

(c) Please provide all environmental studies done by Enbridge or by Interprovincial Pipelines concerning the section of the pipe within Durham Region including studies done as part of the approval process of Line 9 in 1975. Include all studies and reports which pertain to Durham Region, either specifically or more generally.

(d) What is the longest distance of the pipeline in Durham Region between shut off valves?

(e) What is the volume of oil in barrels between two shut off values?

(f) What is the largest aount of oil that can theoretically spill between the shut off vales in Durham Region in the time it takes the spill response team to arrive on the scene (90 minutes)?

(g) With respect to the flow rate of oil from the pipeline (i.e. how many barrels of oil can/would escape the pipe in the event of a leak or burst), please provide information with respect to:

i) the flow rate of an undetected leak;

ii) the flow rate of a burst/pipe failure that is detected. a) Motorized valves are located on both sides of the following major water

Response: crossings: • Trent River • Rideau Canal • Gananoque River • Buells Creek and Reservoir • Ottawa River • Rivière des Milles-Isles • Rivière des Prairies

b.i) Enbridge does not have maximum flow rate data for each of the rivers and streams requested. However, in the unlikely event of a release, Enbridge would immediately implement its emergency response procedures to contain released product and mitigate the impacts. These plans include processes for assessing resources at risk, spill trajectories, and travel times based on the circumstances of the incident and using flow rate information applicable at the time and location of the incident. b.ii) Please refer to response to TRCA IR 1.f.iii.

c) No environmental studies were completed within the Durham Region as part of the Project, because no Project work is taking place within Durham Region. Any environment studies that may have been completed in 1975 are not relevant to the issue in this proceeding.

d) The greatest length of pipeline between shut off valves in the Durham Region is 31 km.

e) Between valve MP 1922.23 and MP 1932.91 there is 47,300 bbl of oil. Between valve MP 1932.91 and MP 1949.02 there is 71,300 bbl of oil Between valve MP 1949.02 and MP 1968.28 there is 85,300 bbl of oil. In the unlikely event of an incident on the pipeline, the amount of oil released would be substantially less than shown above. Natural high points in the pipeline elevation profile would hinder the release of oil; resulting in an estimated worst case release of 14,560 bbls within these sections.

f) Refer to response to Durham CLEAR IR 1.4.e g - i) Please refer to response to NEB IR 3.10.c) for information on the performance of the computational pipeline monitoring system.

g - ii) Leaks would be detected by one or all of the overlapping leak detection methods. Please refer to response to NEB IR 3.10.c)

5 The engineering design and integrity of the proposed project

(a) Has the pipeline ever operated at the 1,000 psi during its time of service? If Request: so, please advise when and for how long?

(b) At what speed is the oil travelling through the pipe?

(c) What is the life expectancy of the pipeline? - what are the limiting factors?

(d) Because its buried, you can't visually inspect it - how do you know it's not corroding?

(e) How many integrity digs have been conducted in Durham Region over the life of the line? How many since the application? How were the locations determined? What was found? Remedial action taken? Please provide a list all integrity digs performed and findings/reports on Line 9B in Durham Region since its construction to date.

(f) With respect to the internal inspection (pigs?) - how often are these apparati deployed? How fast do they move through the pipe? What inspection techniques are they using, i.e. visual, x-ray, ultrasound?

(g) Were these internal inspection apparati in use on Line 6B in Michigan? If so, what did they detect? Why did it take so long for Enbridge to apply to repair Line or why not?

(h) Given that Line 9B and Line 6B are extremely similar in age and design, what has Enbridge done to ensure that what happened on Line 6B won’t happen on Line 9B? Please provide all copies of all details, designs, internal memos and reports, consultations and any other documentation in relation to this.

(i) Are oil pipelines subject to harmonic vibrations. Assuming yes, what potential damage do they cause? What steps are undertaken to mitigate them?

(j) Are leaks/ruptures on pipelines more likely at elbows?

(k) How frequently are the sacrificial anodes replaced? How far apart are they? Does the replacement require excavation?

(l) Why in 1997 did the Proponent choose to conduct hydrostatic testing? This would have involved emptying the pipeline and pumping water in at high pressures? How high a pressure was the hydrostatic testing conducted? The results showed that there were no leaks or ruptures. Did actual experience of the following year confirm no leaks? This testing occurred when the pipeline was 21 years old, and now it is 37 years, when will this test be conducted again?

(m)The Proponent states that the pressure along the line varies, with the highest pressure just after a pumping station. What is the “peak pressure” that has occurred at this point and what will the “peak pressure” be for the new configuration?

(n) What is the burst pressure and RPR of the Proponents specified pipe? Same question, only for the HCA’s?

(o) What is the burst pressure and RPR of the Proponents specified pipe in the HCA’s?

(p) At 75% feature depth, what is the burst pressure of that pipe?

(q) If a feature is identified at 50%, does this mean the pipe wall thickness has failed by 50% at that point? At this level of feature penetration, what is the impact on pipe strength? What is the impact on operating pressure?

(r) The Proponent states “...features below the 50% excavation criterion will be monitored... “Why were the remaining 14 features meeting the excavation criterion not repaired?

(s) With over 1250 features continuing to grow, when does the Proponent decide it is time to replace the pipeline?

(t) When added protection is applied to the pipeline in HCA’s, how far beyond the HCA boundary is this added protection carried?

(u) How often are HCA’s physically monitored for features? 5

(v) With 600 leaks of various sizes on the line since start-up, has Enbridge developed a relationship between age and number of leaks? If so, has this analysis provided an indication as to the reasonable life of a pipeline? If not, why not? Please provide all documentation related to any analysis Enbridge has done on the previous 600 leaks.

Response:

a) No 

b) Please refer to response to Toronto IR 1.17.g.a1.

c) Pipelines are designed as long life assets. With regular maintenance, pipelines have an indefinite life.

d) The pipeline is safeguarded with a protective coating and cathodic protection. Corrosion is monitored regularly through ILI, and regular maintenance activities are undertaken according to the Integrity Management System detailed in Section 4 of the Pipeline Engineering Assessment ("Pipeline EA").

e) Enbridge objects to the request as it is unreasonable and unduly onerous. The time, effort and expense involved in the compilation of the requested information are not warranted by the relevance, if any, of the information sought, by the significance of that information in the context of the proceeding, or by the probative value of the result.

f) The ILI history summary for Line 9B from 1975-2013 is available in the Pipeline EA Table 3-3. The table also specifies the type of inspection technology utilized. Enbridge uses the following ILI technologies: ultrasonic, magnetic flux leakage ("MFL"), and caliper tools. The speed at which ILI tools move through the pipe is controlled to maximize detection performance. Typical tool velocities are 1.0 m/s, but vary according to vendor tool speed specifications.

g) Enbridge objects to the request as the information sought is not relevant to the issues in this proceeding.

h) Enbridge objects to the request as it is not reasonable. Durham CLEAR is engaging in a “fishing expedition.”

i) No, oil pipelines are not subject to harmonic vibrations.

j) Pipe elbows are more vulnerable to internal metal loss. However, Enbridge does not utilize elbows on its pipelines, including Line 9.

k) Cathodic protection on Line 9 is accomplished primarily through a network of impressed current cathodic protection systems, however there are some locations on Line 9 where sacrificial anodes have been installed for localized hot spot protection and alternating current mitigation in high voltage corridors. The consumption of a sacrificial anode is proportional to the total current it delivers. Sacrificial anodes become ineffective and are replaced once they are no longer capable of sufficient current output. Performance is evaluated by obtaining sacrificial anode currents where accessible during the annual cathodic protection survey. Spacing of sacrificial anodes is dictated by a number of factors including: corrosivity of the environment, soil characteristics / resistivity, geometry of the location and influence from stray/foreign current sources. Replacement requires some form of excavation; which can include less invasive techniques such as hydro-vacuuming.

l) Please refer to response to Ontario IR 1.14.a, NEB IR 1.27 and the Section 3 of the Pipeline EA for detailed information on the prior hydrotest and release history on Line 9.

m) Please refer to Table 3-1 and Figure 4.26 in the Pipeline EA for maximum allowable operating pressure information. The Project will not involve a change to the NEB-approved MOP of Line 9.

n) Please refer to Section 4 of the Pipeline Integrity EA Exhibit B1-15 for detailed analysis of the pipeline condition.

o) Please refer to response Durham CLEAR IR 5.n.

p) In general terms, the failure pressure for a specific pipe defect is dependent on both defect length and through-wall depth. Failure pressure depends on the feature type (corrosion or crack) and the unique feature depth profile over the lenght of the feature. A failure pressure cannot be calculated based on the information provided however a feature with a depth of 75% may be safe to operate at full operating pressure based on CSA Z662 and subsequent defect assessment standards.

q) When a feature is identified as being 50%, this indicates that at the thinnest point within the feature boundary, cross sectional wall thickness has reached 50% of the original design thickness. The impact that a 50% feature would have on pipe strength would depend on the extent (width and length) of the wall loss. Enbridge’s Integrity Management System requires excavation of features reported as being 50% through wall. Detailed field assessment of the feature, taking into account the profile and depth, will determine the remaining pipe strength, and the appropriate repair method. Enbridge maintains a safe operating pressure dependent upon the estimated failure pressure of non-repaired defects. A minimum 1.25 safety factor for the maximum operating pressure is maintained based on these failure pressure calculations.

r) Figure 4.7 of the Pipeline EA provides a histogram for corrosion features, while the paragraph below Figure 4.7 refers to joints. There were 49 corrosion features 50% or greater located on 35 joints. These 35 joints of pipe were excavated; those features requiring repair were repaired in accordance with CSA Z662.

s) All pipelines within Enbridge are maintained based on Integrity Management System ("IMS"), including Line 9. Enbridge carried out a comprehensive ILI program on Line 9 and, based on the identified features, determined the best course of action was to proceed with the dig repair program rather than pipe replacement. Both methods of pipeline maintenance (dig repair and replacement) preserve the integrity of the pipeline system.

t) The entire pipeline is maintained as detailed in section 4 of the Pipeline EA regardless of the classification. Identification of HCAs, as referenced in Section 4.2.8.2 of the Pipeline EA is used to determine the re-inspection interval for metal ILI tools. The annual corrosion growth rate ("CGR") is applied to measured features and the features are aged until one such feature would exceed the Enbridge threshold level. The re-inspection interval is based on the year in which such feature would meet the threshold criteria. Regions classified as HCAs have a threshold level of 0.93 RPR. Non-HCA regions have a threshold level of 0.90 RPR. The boundaries of the HCAs used to determine the reinspection interval are as shown in figures 4.20, 4.22 and 4.24 of the Pipeline EA.

u) Enbridge monitors pipeline features through ILI. The ILI frequency is depicted in Table 3-3 of the Pipeline EA Exhibit B1-15. Typical in-line inspection monitoring frequencies are based on 5 to 7 year intervals.

v) The release history for Line 9 is presented in Attachment 1 to response to Ontario IR 1.8.a. There were 12 releases over the last 35 years. It is unclear which releases are referenced by Durham CLEAR. A correlation between pipeline age and failure history has not been found. Enbridge voluntarily participates in industry initiatives to review and assess pipeline industry release causes. Safety, security, contingency plan

6 The safety, security and contingency planning associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project including emergency response planning and third- party damage prevention

(a) How is the pipeline monitored? How would you know if there was a small Request: but steady leak?

(b) Drag reducing agents - what are they chemically? - are they consistent or do they vary according to what is being transported? - are they toxic? - have their effect on the environment or humans been evaluated? What are the effects? Do the people working with it know its composition? Has Enbridge complied with WHMIS? If so, please provide details of this compliance.

(c) What exactly is the diluent in dilbit? Is its composition always the same or does it vary according to what is being transported? Is it toxic? Have its effects on the environment or humans been evaluated? What are the effects? Do the people working with it know its composition? Please provide the ‘recipe” for the diluent, along with any and all evaluations or test results Enbridge has conducted. With respect to the diluents, has Enbridge complied with WHMIS? If so, please provide details of this compliance.

(d) Please provide a description of all past leaks on Line9 through Durham Region - even the smallest ones. How was each of these first detected? What and how fast was the response? Was there any prior indications in your diagnostics that there would be a problem? What were those indications?

(e) Can dikes and diversion systems be built where the pipeline crosses waterways so that any spill does not get into the water

(f) The Proponent states that there was one mainline rupture. How large was this rupture, i.e. how much oil was spilled? was there environmental impact? were property owners advised? how large was the rupture? what was the location of the rupture?

(g) Further to the above rupture; what was the cause? what corrective actions were identified to prevent another rupture? were these actions completed?

(h) With 600 leaks of various sizes on the line since start-up, has Enbridge developed a relationship between age and number of leaks? If so, has this analysis provided an indication as to the reasonable life of a pipeline? If not, why not? 6

(i) Since the pipeline runs through environmentally sensitive areas, what pre- emptive discussions have occurred with local conservation authorities to ensure access to the pipeline in the event of a discovered pipeline weakness which requires excavations to access the pipeline in order to repair it?

(j) With the cleanup of spills costing upwards of a billion dollars and with Lake Ontario being closer than any other major body of water supplying drinking to millions of people, what is the economic/impact justification for setting response times at 90 minutes from crew dispatch to their arrival on the spill site? Please provide all documentation and information with respect to this measure.

(k) Line 9 passes only a few miles north of 2 large nuclear power stations which use water from Lake Ontario for cooling. What information has been provided to Ontario Power Generation (OPG) with regard to contamination of cooling water supply from Lake Ontario in the event of a spill? Has OPG used this information in preparing an Emergency Response Plan which ensures the health and safety of Workers at the plant and the Public at large? Has this information been shared with Enbridge? If so, please provide copies of all such documentation relating to this matter.

Response:

a) Please refer to response to NEB IR 3.10.c 

b) Please refer to response to Les Citoyens au Courant IR 5.32 for the DRA MSDS. DRA would not represent an additional risk to the human health or the enviroment in the unlikely event of a release.

c) Diluent (also referred to as condensate) is a light hydrocarbon component mixture. This mixture primarily contains the lightest components of a light sweet crude oil. The components that make up diluent are referred to as parrafins, napthenes and aromatics. It is used to reduce the viscosity of bitumen to allow it to flow under ambient and pipeline temperatures. The composition of diluent can change depending on the type and amount of diluent used. Please refer to responses to Les Citoyens au Courant IRs 5.17b and 5.18. Line 9 will not be transporting diluent but diluted bitumen

d) Please refer to response to Ontario IR 1.8.a for a list of known events. None of the listed events was within the Region of Durham (KPs 3100.341 to 3162.390).

e) Enbridge would create temporary dams and diversions to prevent oil from an incident getting into waterways. Enbridge cannot design permanent dikes and diversion systems at waterway crossings as this would not meet environmental protection standards and would negatively impact overall land drainage.

f) Please refer to response to NEB IR 1.27 and response to Ontario IR 1.8.b for details of this incident. The landowner was advised of the incident.

g) Please refer to response to NEB IR 1.27.

h) Please refer to response to Durham CLEAR IR 5.v.

i) Please refer to response to A2A IR 5.b.

j) Please refer to response to A2A IR 1.5.e.

k) In the unlikely event of a release, Enbridge would work with OPG to manage water issues and protect the water intakes.

8 Consultation and Potential Impacts: Consultation activities and potential impacts of the project on affected landowners and land use

(a) How are the owners of the land that your pipelines cross compensated Request: for the use of their land? for the disruption when you have to excavate?

(b) Are the landowners in agreement with what you are proposing to do? If so, can you please provide evidence of such agreement.

Response:

(a) With the exception of some minor temporary workspace required for  construction and for a new densitometer, near Enbridge’s North- Westover Station, and within an industrial area in Montreal, the Project will take place within existing Enbridge properties and right of way. Generally speaking, the affected landowners will be compensated for the temporary workspace, including inconvenience and any crop loss, if applicable.

(b) Please refer to response to Les Citoyens au Courant IR 8.4

9 The terms and conditions related to the above issues, to be included in any approval the Board may issue for the proposed project.

(a) Has Enbridge considered creating an advisory/monitor site for those Request: affected by proposed project so that information can be easily obtained? If so, please provide details of such. If not, please explain why not.

(b) Has Enbridge considered putting in more shut off values to decrease the amount of crude involved in a leak, burst or spill? If so, please provide details of such. If not, please explain why not.

(c) Has Enbridge considered increasing the number of spill response teams to the Durham Region area? If so, please provide details of such. If not, please explain why not.

Response:

(a) Enbridge believes in open and transparent communication with all  landowners, communities and Aboriginal groups along the ROW and is committed to sharing information with those who are interested or who are potentially affected by the Project. To that end, Enbridge created a website for the proposed Project at www.enbridge.com/line9b, where Project information can be easily obtained.

(b) Please refer to the response to NEB IR 2.7.

(c) Enbridge reviews response team locations on a regular basis. Enbridge believes that, based on location of existing crews and location of contractor response crews, there is sufficient coverage in the Durham area.

 

Our Questions to Enbridge re Line 9

As an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings of the reversal (etc.) of Line 9, we get to ask questions which Enbridge is required to answer. On June 10, DurhamCLEAR sent them the following list of questions:

 

DC gets Intervenor Status AND Funding

DC has been granted Intervenor status for the National Energy Board hearings on Line 9 and has been granted funding in the amount of $23,500.

Much of this will go to pay our lawyer, Lloyd Greenspoon, a prominent environmental lawyer whose offices are in Sunderland(N of Port Perry)

The remaining funding will cover travel (the NEB has not indicated yet where the oral hearings will,be held) and for a series of public meetings we are planning to gather people's views and concerns about this project.

Nebraskans out in force to oppose Keystone XL pipeline

We're not the only ones fighting dirty oil.

Last Thursday when we were finalizing our 'applications' to have our opinions heard on Line 9, more than a thousand people were at a meeting in Grand Island, Neb. to tell the State Department what they think of plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The meeting went on for 8 hours. Each speaker was given 3 minutes.

There has also been more than 807,000 written submissions and they're still coming in.

DurhamCLEAR applies for intervenor status at NEB hearings into Line 9

April 19, 2013

DurhamCLEAR submitted an application today for intervenor status in connection with Enbridge's application to:

  • reverse its Line9 pipeline so that it carries oil from Sarnia to Montreal.
  • increase its capacity from 240,000 barrels a day to 300,000
  • permit the transport of diluted bitumen from the tar sands in Alberta

Since the pipeline already exists, the National Energy Board has severely narrowed the field of comment to exclude any discussion about the source or the end product.

Neverthe there are many issues to consider:

  • is a 35 year old pipe capable of safely transporting higher volumes of oil
  • what are the implications of a spill of dilbit, and what protections will the NEB require if they allow it

For the full application it is filed here: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=945386

DurhamCLEAR will be applying for intervenor funding.

NEB hearing process announced - Public Info session Tues Apr. 9

The terms for participation in the National Energy Board hearings have just been announced.

You have to apply even if you only want to write a letter of any kind concerning Line 9. The application (here) is 10 pages long. The full document which provides explanations is here. You have less than 2 weeks, until April 19th, to submit your application

The NEB has agreed to hold an info session in Durham. This is strictly about process but as you can see from below the NEB has made the process an issue in itself:

Tuesday, April 9, 7pm
Ajax Town Hall - Council Chambers

click here for more info

Applications to participate may be submitted electronically through the NEB website but must be in pdf format. 

Your application does not guarantee that they will hear you:

the following is extracted from: (http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pblcprtcptn/pblchrng/pblchrng-eng...)

the Board will hear from the people who stand to be directly impacted by a proposed project, and may hear from those who have information and expertise that could help the hearing panel gain a greater understanding of a given matter under consideration.

The changes to the Act are intended to promote fairness and efficiency by ensuring Board hearings can take place in a timely manner.

Syndicate content