A Spill Risk Assessment of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Land, and Parks (BC MoELP). (2000). Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA): An Approach for Assessing and Report Environmental Conditions. (No. QH541.15.S95E5 2000). BC.: Ministry of Environment, Land, and Parks. British Petroleum (BP). (2012). Conversion Factors. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from http://www.bp.com/conversionfactors.jsp. Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM). (undated). Oil-‐Spill Occurrence Rate for Oil-‐Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA). Retrieved from http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-‐Stewardship/Environmental-‐ Assessment/Oil-‐Spill-‐Modeling/Oil-‐Spill-‐Occurence-‐Rate-‐for-‐Oil-‐Spill-‐Risk-‐Analysis-‐ (OSRA).aspx. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52. Caza, A. (2012). Personal Communication with S. Broadbent. Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD). (2011). Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. ( No. FA1-‐ 2/2011-‐2-‐0E-‐PDF). Ottawa, ON.: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). (2004). Ports and the ISPS Code -‐ will they make it? Retrieved from http://www.dnv.com/industry/maritime/publicationsanddownloads/publications/ maritime_magazine/2004/class_news_1_2004/PortsandtheISPSCodewilltheymakeit .asp. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). (2008). It Takes Management Commitment to Reduce Accidents. Retrieved from http://www.dnv.com/industry/maritime/publicationsanddownloads/publications/ dnvtankerupdate/2008/no12008/ittakesmanagementcommitmenttoreduceacciden ts.asp. Dudding, P. (2013). Personal Communication with S. Broadbent. Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc. (DRAS). (2012). Threat Assessment. In WorleyParsons Canada Services Limited (WorleyParsons) (Ed.), Semi-‐Quantitative Risk Assessment (pp. 142). Enbridge. (2001). 2001 Environment, Health and Safety Report. Retrieved 2012, June 14, from http://www.enbridge.com/AboutEnbridge/CorporateSocialResponsibility/~/medi a/www/Site%20Documents/About%20Enbridge/Corporate%20Social%20Respon sibility/Reports/2001-‐ehs-‐report.ashx. 78
Enbridge. (2004). 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved 2012, June 14, from http://www.enbridge.com/AboutEnbridge/CorporateSocialResponsibility/~/medi a/www/Site%20Documents/About%20Enbridge/Corporate%20Social%20Respon sibility/Reports/2004-‐csr.ashx. Enbridge. (2007). 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved 2012, June 14, from http://www.enbridge.com/AboutEnbridge/CorporateSocialResponsibility/~/medi a/www/Site%20Documents/About%20Enbridge/Corporate%20Social%20Respon sibility/Reports/enbridgecsr2007.ashx. Enbridge. (2010a). 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved 2012, July 15, from http://csr.enbridge.com/csr2010/downloads/2010_Enbridge_CSR_Report.pdf. Enbridge. (2010b). Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Section 52 Application, Volumes 1-‐ 8. Retrieved from http://gatewaypanel.review-‐examen.gc.ca/clf-‐ nsi/pblcrgstr/pblcrgstr-‐eng.html. Enbridge. (2010c). TERMPOL Study No. 3.15: General Risk Analysis and Intended Methods of Reducing Risk. Retrieved from http://gatewaypanel.review-‐examen.gc.ca/clf-‐ nsi/pblcrgstr/pblcrgstr-‐eng.html. Enbridge. (2011). 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from http://csr.enbridge.com/downloads/pdf/Enbridge-‐2011-‐CSR-‐Report.pdf. Enbridge. (2012a). Northern Gateway Response to Coastal First Nations’ Request for Follow-‐Up Information on Reply Evidence. Retrieved from http://gatewaypanel.review-‐examen.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/pblcrgstr/pblcrgstr-‐eng.html. Enbridge. (2012b). ENGP Hearing Transcripts. Retrieved from http://gatewaypanel.review-‐examen.gc.ca/clf-‐nsi/pblcrgstr/pblcrgstr-‐eng.html. Environment Canada Oil Properties Database (EC OPD). (2012). Oil Properties for Athabasca Bitumen and West Texas Intermediate. Retrieved 2012, March 6, from http://www.etc-‐cte.ec.gc.ca/databases/OilProperties. Eliopoulou, E., Papanikolaou, A. (2007). Casualty Analysis of Large Tankers, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 12, 240-‐250. Eliopoulou, E., Papanikolaou, A., Diamantis, P., Hamann, R. (2011). Analysis of Tanker Accidents after OPA 90, acc. for publication at the Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment (JEME). 79
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 and 12:
List of Equations, Figures and Tabl
Page 13 and 14:
1. Introduction This report provide
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: References Alberta Energy and Utili
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?