A Spill Risk Assessment of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of Acronyms AB Alberta Bbbl Billion Barrels bbl Barrels BC British Columbia BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Dilbit Diluted Bitumen DNV Det Norske Veritas ENGP Enbridge Northern Gateway Project kbpd Thousand Barrels per Day km Kilometres LRFP Lloyds Register Fairplay NEB National Energy Board nm Nautical Miles OSRA Oil Spill Risk Analysis PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration QRA Quantitative Risk Analysis US United States VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by Coastal First Nations. We would like to thank the external reviewers who evaluated earlier drafts of this report and provided helpful comments and suggestions. xi
1. Introduction This report provides a review of spill estimates for tanker, terminal, and pipeline operations associated with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (ENGP). The objective of the report is to assess whether the ENGP is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). According to the CEAA the decision maker must decide if the project: (a) is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(1); and (b) is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(2) [emphasis added] (CEAA Sec. 52). Thus a key criterion in the decision of whether or not to approve a project is the likelihood that the project will cause significant adverse environmental effects. In the case of the ENGP, a fundamental component of determining the likelihood that a project will cause significant adverse environmental effects is an assessment of the probability that a spill will occur. This report assesses the methodologies used to estimate spill probabilities in the ENGP regulatory application. The study uses the following approach to achieve our research objective: I. Summarize spill estimates submitted by Enbridge for the ENGP II. Evaluate the marine and terrestrial spill estimates submitted by Enbridge for the ENGP against international best practices criteria III. Undertake sensitivity analysis to test the impact of deficiencies on the spill rate estimates IV. Apply the United States (US) Oil Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) model to estimate marine and terrestrial spill probabilities for the ENGP V. Submit a draft report summarizing the findings for review by international risk assessment experts and revise report based on the review. Following the introduction, the second section of our report summarizes the Northern Gateway Project. The third section summarizes Enbridge’s estimate of the likelihood of tanker, terminal, and pipeline spills. In the fourth section, we evaluate Enbridge’s spill estimate methodology and complete a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the range of spill rates under different scenarios. In the sixth section, we estimate alternative spill probabilities for tanker and pipeline operations using the US OSRA model. The seventh section compares the methodological approach and results of the OSRA model to those submitted as part of the ENGP regulatory application and section eight provides conclusions based on our findings. 1
Page 1 and 2: A Spill Risk Assessment of the Enbr
Page 3 and 4: Table ES-‐1: Results for the Qu
Page 5 and 6: These findings show that the defici
Page 7 and 8: Table ES-‐4: Probabilities for
Page 9 and 10: increases to 99.9% if the volume of
Page 11: List of Equations, Figures and Tabl
Page 15 and 16: Enbridge expects that tankers calli
Page 17 and 18: Major facilities at Kitimat Termina
Page 19 and 20: affecting risk are equal to the wor
Page 21 and 22: Table 5: Estimated Reduction in the
Page 23 and 24: medium size oil/condensate spills f
Page 25 and 26: Table 12: Return Periods for Spills
Page 27 and 28: adjustments ranging from 60 to 90%.
Page 29 and 30: Table 17: Evaluative Criteria for A
Page 31 and 32: Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and N
Page 33 and 34: of escort and tethered tugs will re
Page 35 and 36: ENGP regulatory application. Furthe
Page 37 and 38: We acknowledge the difficulty in re
Page 39 and 40: Table 19: Spill Probabilities Over
Page 41 and 42: • Mortality of a small number of
Page 43 and 44: In its regulatory application for t
Page 45 and 46: accidents in Canada, the LRFP datab
Page 47 and 48: Evidence suggests that sulphur conc
Page 49 and 50: anging between 16 and 20 years 22 a
Page 51 and 52: The absence of expert review for th
Page 53 and 54: Risk Acceptability Risk Acceptabili
Page 55 and 56: the likelihood that environmental a
Page 57 and 58: 5. Extended Sensitivity Analysis fo
Page 59 and 60: Table 25: Five-‐Percentage Poin
Page 61 and 62: Sensitivity 6: Aggregating Paramete
Page 63 and 64:
effects of different assumptions on
Page 65 and 66:
combined, the NEB data suggests tha
Page 67 and 68:
United States of America with the O
Page 69 and 70:
2. Estimate the volume of oil and c
Page 71 and 72:
1994 to 2008 international data and
Page 73 and 74:
6.3. Spill Probability Estimates fo
Page 75 and 76:
6.4. Summary of ENGP Spill Probabil
Page 77 and 78:
The OSRA method clearly estimates s
Page 79 and 80:
Evaluation: There is one major defi
Page 81 and 82:
7. Comparison of Spill Estimates fo
Page 83 and 84:
operation. Our application of the O
Page 85 and 86:
8. Conclusion This report evaluates
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 5: Number of ENGP Terminal S
Page 89 and 90:
References Alberta Energy and Utili
Page 91 and 92:
Enbridge. (2004). 2004 Corporate So
Page 93 and 94:
MacDonald, K. (2012). Northern Gate
Page 95 and 96:
United States Department of Transpo
Page 97 and 98:
• Tankers sail in coastal areas w
Page 99 and 100:
• Major Damage: Damage to the tan
Page 101 and 102:
25% for a collision (Brandsæter an
Page 103 and 104:
the overall tanker spill return per
Page 105 and 106:
Table A-‐11: Sensitivity Analys
Page 107 and 108:
Group estimates risks from spills t
Page 109 and 110:
In the event a tanker is struck by
Page 111 and 112:
a spill. Expressed as a return peri
Page 113 and 114:
2012 as a response to an informatio
Page 115 and 116:
Table A-‐23: Return Periods for
Page 117 and 118:
The first Bercha Group (2012c) stud
show all

A Spill Risk Assessment of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?