Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion

New Westminster Environmental Partners

09 July 2014

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX)

• Twinning the existing pipeline, where possible, within the existing right-of-way between Strathcona County, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia

• Projected capital cost $5.4 billion

• Adding new pump stations along the route

• Increasing number of storage tanks at existing facilities

• Increasing capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels/day

• Expanding Westridge Marine Terminal, approximately one additional tanker/day.

Environmental Concerns* • The larger tankers planned for Second Narrows can carry up to one million

barrels of crude - three times the amount spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster. And in this case, it would be diluted bitumen from the tar sands rather than conventional crude.

• Diluted bitumen—bitumen extracted from the tar sands and then diluted with natural gas liquids so that it can flow through pipes—differs from conventional crude: it is thicker, more acidic, more sulphuric, and more abrasive. Translation: diluted bitumen is more likely to cause corrosion in the pipelines through which it flows, as well as in the tankers that carry it through marine ecosystems. It is also harder to clean up.

• Conventional oil spill clean-up responses, which focus on containing and recovering oil floating on the surface of the water, are largely ineffective in the case of a bitumen spill, because bitumen will sink below the surface, as happened when an Enbridge pipeline failed in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

• In the past five years, Metro Vancouver has seen two pipeline spills in Burnaby (in 2007 and 2009) and, in January 2012, a spill in Abbotsford.

• IPCC, IEA and others have call for urgent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels to avoid severe climate impacts.

*www.sierraclub.bc.ca site

Local Economic Benefits?!

“Spill response and clean-up creates business and employment opportunities for affected communities, regions, and clean-up service providers, particularly in those communities where spill response equipment is, or would be, staged.”

TMX Application

Section 5.6.1.1, Page 6A-615

Environmental Concerns - Local• Much of Brunette River biologically lifeless in

1950s, now has multiple fish species, including thousands of spawning salmon

• Pipeline failure:

– Seismic event

– Corrosion

– Accident/Mischief

• Speed of catastrophic spill impacts, lack of local spill response capability

• Area prone to flooding

• Construction impacts

Envision 2032 Directions

• Key sensitive ecosystems in the City are protected and

are being restored while parks, natural areas and other

green areas, including yards, are gradually increasing

their biodiversity and habitat value; and

• The habitat and recreation value of local waters and

wetlands, including the Brunette and Fraser Rivers, is

being restored, streams are being “daylighted” and

industrial waterfront properties are continually reducing

their impacts on the foreshore.

NEB – Hearing OrderOn 16 December 2013, Trans Mountain applied to the National Energy Board (Board) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and related approvals for its proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project, pursuant to the National Energy Board Act.

As detailed in a separate letter dated 2 April 2014, the Board has determined that the Application is complete to proceed to assessment. As a result, a public hearing will be held.

The Board is issuing the attached Hearing Order OH-001-2014 detailing the steps and deadlines that will be followed during the Application assessment and public hearing process. The process has been designed to be fair, transparent, and efficient, and to provide certainty to all those involved.

The Board will also conduct an environmental assessment under the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which will be included in the Board’s report to the Minister of Natural Resources. For more information, see the Board’s 2 April 2014 Factors and Scope of the Factors for the Environmental Assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

The CEAA 2012 environmental assessment for the designated project will take into account the factors described in paragraphs 19(1)(a) through (h) of the CEAA 2012:

(a) the environmental effects of the designated project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the designated project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out;

(b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) comments from the public or any interested party received in accordance with the CEAA 2012;

(d) mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the designated project;

(e) the requirements of the follow-up program in respect of the designated project;

(f) the purpose of the designated project;

(g) alternative means of carrying out the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means;

(h) any change to the designated project that may be caused by the environment.

The environmental assessment will consider the potential effects of the designated project within spatial and temporal boundaries within which the designated project may potentially interact with and have an effect on components of the environment.* These boundaries will vary with the

issues and factors considered, and will include, but not be limited to:

• construction, operation and maintenance, foreseeable changes, and site reclamation, as well as any other undertakings proposed by the proponent or that are likely to be carried out in relation to the physical works proposed by the proponent, including mitigation and habitat replacement measures;

• seasonal or other natural variations of a population or ecological component;

• any sensitive life cycle phases of species (e.g., wildlife, vegetation) in relation to the timing of Project activities;

• the time required for an effect to become evident;

• the area within which a population or ecological component functions; and

• the area affected by the Project.

*In response to subsequent intervener motions, the NEB has ruled that the upstream and downstream impacts of producing and combusting the bitumen are not within the boundaries for this environmental review.

Review Process Steps• Hearing Order. The terms and conditions for the review process,

including dates and the naming of Interveners and Commenters

• Information Requests. – Two opportunities for intervenors to obtain additional information/clarifications

from the proponent beyond what was contained in NEB submission.

– First Information Request deadline was May 12th and the second in September.

– There are limited guidelines for the format or level of detail that need to be included in responses.

• Motions. Mechanism for intervenors requesting changes of the NEB panel to the scope and process of the review.

– The most significant intervenor motion to date has been for opportunities to cross-examine the proponent, which was refused by the review panel.

• Written Evidence. Intervenors may submit their facts, issues and any proposed resolutions or recommended conditions on the proponent to the NEB panel.

• Oral Arguments. Intervenors may make verbal presentations summarizing their position to the NEB panel at a “hearing.”*

*Only NEB panel allowed to ask questions

Review Process Timeline• Round 1 IRs to Kinder Morgan: 2 May 2014

• Aboriginal Intervenors file notices of intent for oral traditional evidence: 5 June 2014

• Round 2 IRs to Kinder Morgan: 11 September 2014

• Intervenors file written evidence: 3 November 2014

• Intervenors submit IRs to other Intervenors: 14 November 2014

• Intervenors respond to IRs from other Intervenors and Kinder Morgan: 26 November 2014

• Intervenors respond to Board IRs: 8 January 2015

• Intervenors file affidavits and notice to present final oral argument: 13 January 2015

• Start of Oral Hearing: February 2015

• Board report to cabinet - no later than 2 July 2015

NEB Intervener Requirement –Directly Affected by Proposal

The City of New Westminster, located adjacent to the

terminus City of Burnaby, is in close proximity to the

proposed expansion route and has concerns over potential

impacts to the local environment, including impacts on soil,

water and local flora and fauna. In particular, the City has

concerns over the potential impacts of the route on the

Sapperton neighbourhood, the Braid Industrial Area and

the Brunette River watershed. The City would like an

opportunity to present relevant data with respect to these

concerns to the Board for consideration in its decisions

related to this project.

NEB Intervener Requirement -Connection to Review Scope

4. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, including those required to be considered by the NEB’s Filing Manual.

6. The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the proposed project.

10. Potential impacts of the project on landowners and land use.

11. Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the project.

12. Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention.

Interveners may…• Represent interests of local stakeholders

• File written evidence

• Ask written questions about Trans Mountain’s and other intervenors’ evidence

• File and respond to notices of motion

• Comment on draft conditions identified by the NEB review panel

• Submit written and oral arguments

City Information Request 11. Is the Alternative Corridor still under active investigation?

2. If the Alternative Corridor is under investigation:a. Please provide the same level of technical detail for the Alternative Corridor as

for the Selected Study Corridor.

b. Please provide precise mapping of the proposed pipeline alignment, including

proximity to the river bank at all sections of the boundaries between New

Westminster, Coquitlam and Burnaby

c. What environmental remediation measures are proposed to address potential

impacts on the river’s riparian and upland areas, which have been heavily

impacted by previous industrial activity and the subject of considerable

restoration work?

d. Please provide details of how the pipeline would be constructed in this section

and construction management practices.

e. If the pipeline is adjacent to the river, what measures are would be incorporated

to reduce the risk of pipeline damage in this flood plain and the effects of spills

in the river and downstream through the Braid Industrial Area?

f. What consultation has taken place with local environmental groups, such as the

Sapperton Fish and Game Club and New Westminster Environmental Partners.

Information Request - Response• The corridor adjacent to the Brunette River which was previously

identified as an alternative is now selected by Trans Mountain as the proposed revised pipeline corridor for the Project. The proposed revised pipeline corridor is depicted on Map 54 of 54 in the 1:50,000 scale map book provided in response to NEB IR No. 1.84a Attachment 1. The previously proposed pipeline corridor along the Lougheed Highway is no longer being considered.

• Trans Mountain will provide an update on routing in the Coquitlam and Burnaby areas in Technical Update No. 1, to be submitted to the NEB in Q3 2014 (i.e., sometime this summer)

• The Alternative Corridor is still under investigation. Trans Mountain will provide an update on routing in the New Westminster, Coquitlam and Burnaby areas in Technical Update No. 1, to be submitted to the NEB in Q3 2014. The update will include additional information and a map of the proposed and alternative corridors being considered.

City Motion on NEB Process

That the Hearing Order be revised in order that the dates specified for review process steps, including Information Requests and written and oral submissions, begin at such time as a complete application has been received from the proponent with full detail on both the “selected” and any “alternative” corridors that are being put forward for consideration by the Board.

Next Steps• Work with local stakeholders to identify

issues and collect necessary information for City submissions to NEB:

– Sapperton Fish and Game Club

– New Westminster Environmental Partners

– NWSS Environment Club

– City Environment Committee

• Engage environmental consulting support

• Plan for Town Hall meeting in September

• Prepare oral/written submissions

Thanks! Questions?• http://www.transmountain.com/project-overview

• http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/trnsmntnxpnsn/trnsmntnxpnsn-eng.html

• http://www.burnaby.ca/Proposed-Kinder-Morgan-Trans-Mountain-Expansion-Project.html

Mark Allison

Manager, Strategic Initiatives and Sustainability

604-527-4653

mallison@newwestcity.ca