DRAFT STAFF ANALYSIS KILGARD CREEK REMEDIATION

Similar documents
Environmental Setting

Fish Habitat Protection Development Permit Area

LNG Canada Development Inc.

SunEEarth Alberta Solar Development Inc.

REASONS FOR DECISION MINISTERIAL APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(1)(a) THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

RIPARIAN AREAS REGULATION

March Protected area boundary adjustments fall within one of three categories:

CITY OF NEW WESTMINSTER. Bylaw No. 7033, 2005 RIPARIAN AREAS PROTECTION BYLAW

Salmon River Enhancement Society (SRES) September 15, 2016

t A TRANSMOUNTAIN Dear Mayor Banman and Council, Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project - Update

PIPELINE EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDELINES

Lower Columbia River Pile Dike Assessment

SemCAMS Area Project Description

LNG Canada submitted a formal update as per Condition 11.2 of the CEAA Decision Statement on June 30, 2017:

Substation Developments Environmental Guidelines Checklist for Applicants

APPENDIX G HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT

PROJECT OVERVIEW. 12 new pump stations, 19 new tanks, space for three Aframax vessels at the Westridge Marine Terminal

DIRECTIONS FOR USE OF SUITABLE PORTIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE STREAM FOR LAND RESTORATION/RECLAMATION PROJECTS

Papua New Guinea LNG Project. Environmental and Social Management Plan Appendix 11: Reinstatement Management Plan PGGP-EH-SPENV

Wood Canyon Emergent Wetland Project. City of Aliso Viejo 12 Journey, Suite 100 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

atertech Banff, AB. April 29-May 1, 2009

August 2017 REV GG-0000-RG-RPT-0006 R2. Prepared for: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Headwater Wetland Restoration Techniques The Wetland Drain Restoration Project

Battle Lake Watershed Development Planning Pilot Project. Report of the Multistakeholder Pilot Project Team

Corporate Information CMP

Mount Polley Mining Corporation an Imperial Metals company Box 12 Likely, BC V0L 1N0 T F

Review of the Fisheries Act 23 DECEMBER 2016 PREPARED BY: THE CANADIAN ENERGY PIPELINE ASSOCIATION

Chapter 18 Environment Regulating Landfills 1.0 MAIN POINTS

Environmental Management on a Mega Project. NewLEEF Oct

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES

What is Run-of-river hydro?

Meeting with PRRD Board

I hope that this explanation suffices, Thx, Robert

PIPELINE EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDELINES FOR ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Peatland Restoration. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

Renewal of Conservation Permit CP Pipeline Road

Railroad Commission of Texas

TOWERBIRCH EXPANSION PROJECT

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE

REPORT. Giant Nickel Tailings Dams INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF 2014 DAM SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT. November 26, 2014

Under Section 113 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Appendix 4. Soil Management Plan

Integrity Management Program for

GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN WATERBODIES AND ON WATERBODY BANKS

Coastal Gaslink Pipeline Project

Water Quality Monitoring & Watershed Planning Review

Pteragen Canada Inc.

Policy Implementation in British Columbia, Canada

NORTHERN GAZA EMERGENCY SEWAGE TREATMENT (NGEST) PROJECT APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

CERTIFIED RETURN 1100 Valley Road RECEIPT REQUESTED Reno, NV 89512

Impact of a Logging Road and Helicopter Landing on Wildlife Habitat near Jones Lake

About WCC LNG Project Ltd.

AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SETBACKS FROM WATERCOURSES IN FARMING AREAS

DIVISION of WATER QUALITY NDPDES PROGRAM

Informational Letter IL 98-2


Englishman River Program Status Update Prepared For: Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Technical Advisory Committee February 14, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Galveston District

GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN AND AROUND WATERBODIES AND ON WATERBODY BANKS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & MINING/ENERGY DEVELOPMENT A TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE

PIPELINE INVESTIGATION REPORT P05H0044 CRUDE OIL PIPELINE RUPTURE

Summary of Lower Fraser Initiatives

File: Report Date: April 3, 2017 Report Number: Mount Polley Mining Corporation P.O. BOX 12 Likely, BC V0L 1N0

WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL UPGRADE AND EXPANSION PROJECT APPLICATION TO VANCOUVER FRASER PORT AUTHORITY

SUMMARY LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CANADA LTD. - TEN YEAR FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (CLIENT FILE NO.: )

DFO s Fish Habitat Management Program

Town of Aurora Stream Management Master Plan PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE May 1 st, 2018

Management Objectives and Targets

HP Standard Supplier Requirements for Safe and Legal Products

Amaila Hydropower ESIA Update Section 7

Appendix 8. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Products, Ammonium Nitrate and Explosives Management Plan

Ministerial Statement 958. Compliance Assessment Report. 1 January December 2018

Application for Paragraph 35(2)(b) Fisheries Act Authorization for Workforce Accommodation Centre Revision 1, November 2015

Informational Letter IL 98-1

Incident Reporting Requirements

Mitigating a legacy of liability for Alberta: A novel approach to the orphaned well challenge

Traffic Department Anchorage: Performance. Value. Results.

Corrective Action Verification Audit (CVA) Report

Terms of Reference Governance Committee

How to avoid getting bogged down by the Nova Scotia Wetland Conservation Policy

Source Water Protection Integrating with Existing Watershed and Water Management Frameworks

Outage Management Redesign Consultation Process (SE-109) Proposal for Process Redesign May 14, 2013

Leaside to Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project Strengthening the transmission system in your neighbourhood

Lower Churchill Project. NEIA AGM March 18, 2014

UNDERGROUND UTILITY CROSSING (TRENCHLESS) General Submission Requirements

Information Request 37

The Landowner s Toolkit Series. Oil & Gas Development. Opportunities to Minimize Environmental Impacts on Your Land.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

CREEK RESTORATION/EROSION PROTECTION WORKS. General Submission Requirements

Wapato Access Feasibility Study

Warwickshire Avon Catchment Partnership

Finch Drinking Water System O. Reg 170/03 Schedule 22 - Summary Report for Municipalities

EAO s Assessment of an Application for Certificate Amendment Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project

2015/16 Orphan Site Reclamation Fund Annual Report

BC MINES ACT PERMITTING: UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS

Unauthorized Construction of a Cabin and Trail on Sinclair Mountain. Complaint Investigation

COTTON CREEK CULVERT REPLACMENT

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD PIPELINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORTING GUIDANCE

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE

Transcription:

DRAFT STAFF ANALYSIS KILGARD CREEK REMEDIATION Company Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) for Trans Mountain Pipelines ULC (TMPU) Project Name Kilgard Creek Remediation Order / Certificate OC-2 Number NEB File Number OF-Surv-Inc-2005 039 Report Date 24 March 2017 NEB Incident Number INC2005-039 NEB Remediation Number REM-0165 Location Near Abbotsford, British Columbia NEB staff (by ID number) 2654 (Inspection Officer, Environmental Specialist - Field Operations, Environmental Protection) 2619 (Environmental Specialist, Inspection Officer in Training - Field Operations, Environmental Protection) 2275 (Inspection Officer, Technical Specialist Environment - Field Operations) Background: On 08 July 2005, an incident on the Trans Mountain Pipeline resulted in the release of crude oil onto a residential property at 37195 Ward Road, Abbotsford, British Columbia. The leak, estimated at 210 cubic meters, moved into soil surrounding the pipeline, an adjacent wetland and a watercourse known locally as Kilgard Creek. Following the incident, TMPU took steps to remediate the site. NEB regulatory oversight of the site continues in order to verify compliance with regulatory requirements including the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) and the Board s remediation expectations as described in its Remediation Process Guide. Scope: This review focuses on the four areas listed below: 1. 1:1 Habitat Compensation Commitment; 2. Adequacy of Restoration; 3. Operations and Maintenance Work in 2014; and 4. Remediation Process - Current Status of this Site.

- 2 - Documents Reviewed: Documents Reviewed # Title Document Date Reference 1 2006 Inspection Report 29-Aug-06 RDIMS 207454 2 3 4 Jacques Whitford Axys - Final Kilgard Creek Riparian Restoration and Planting Plan 9-Jan-08 RDIMS 322704 Jacques Whitford Axys Environmental Impact Statement 29-Jan-08 RDIMS 322701 Board Letter Groundwater Monitoring Well Decommissioning 5-Mar-08 RDIMS 234718 Stantec Consulting Sumas -Ward Road Incident Long Term 5 Monitoring - 2012 10-Dec-12 RDIMS 697924 Remediation Closure Report: 6 Sumas-Ward Road Incident 15-Jul-13 RDIMS 955672 7 2013 Inspection Report 13-Dec-13 RDIMS 759171 8 2014 O&M (off site) 19-Mar-14 Filing A59326 9 TMPU IR Response 2-Nov-16 RDIMS 978918 10 City of Abbotsford IR Response 8-Nov-16 RDIMS 986145 11 TMPU IR 2 Response 12-Jan-17 RDIMS 992973 12 TMPU IR 3 Response 17-Feb-17 RDIMS 1000478 13 Record of Communication with TMPU 17-Feb-17 RDIMS 1000595 Staff Analysis: 1. 1:1 Habitat Compensation Commitment On 9 January 2008, TMPU committed to off-site habitat compensation in the Kilgard Creek Riparian Restoration and Planting Plan (Reference # 2, Page 2 of 9). The commitment specifies the restoration of off-site areas totaling 1300 m 2 at a ratio of 1:1. TMPU s commitment is restated in the 29 January 2008 Environmental Impact Statement (Reference # 3, Page 31 of 74). On site, some riparian areas were determined to be too small or too narrow to provide habitat benefits. TMPU made the commitment to consult with the City of Abbotsford to establish suitable off-site riparian areas for compensation (planting of an appropriate composition of willow stakes and shrubs). Following a 2013 Inspection, staff found that TMPU and the City of Abbotsford were working together and making progress towards completing the implementation of TMPU s commitment. Subsequently after a meeting between the two parties, staff was satisfied that TMPU and the City of Abbotsford were working together to identify suitable off-site areas and staff determined that no further follow-up was warranted.

- 3 - In fall of 2016, Information Requests (IRs) focused on the off-site commitment were sent to TMPU and the City of Abbotsford. Upon receiving response to their IRs, staff understood that the commitment remains outstanding. However, based on the information contained in the TMPU and City of Abbotsford IR Responses (References # 9 and #10), staff did not identify concerns with TMPU's plan going forward, which involves continued work with the City of Abbotsford to identify suitable locations to meet the 1:1 habitat compensation commitment in 2017. This Information Request to TMPU also included questions about engagement. TMPU s response indicated that the Sumas First Nation and other stakeholders were engaged with respect to the creation of the initial reclamation plan, and that they had received no adverse feedback regarding the plan. TMPU further stated that, since TMPU has not deviated from the initial reclamation plan and continues to work with impacted parties, TMPU has not re-engaged the Sumas First Nation and other stakeholders. Staff accepts this rationale given that remediation and reclamation at the Kilgard Creek site have been completed and that only off-site habitat compensation is outstanding. However, Staff note that upon identification of a suitable site for the compensation with the City of Abbotsford, TMPU is expected to engage with local stakeholders, including First Nations and other government agencies (as per Section 5.2 of the Remediation Process Guide). A representative of the City of Abbotsford confirmed willingness to work with TMPU to identify potential off- right-of-way (RoW) areas where TMPU could conduct habitat compensation (Reference # 10). A commitment was made by TMPU to update NEB staff on these activities no later than 30 September 2017. Of note, TMPU s Response to IR 1 contained a typographical error (30 September 3017); staff confirmed with TMPU that the correct date is 30 September 2017 (Reference # 11). No non-compliances were identified with respect to this commitment at the time of review. If noncompliances are identified in the future appropriate action will be taken. 2. Adequacy of Restoration TMPU retained an environmental consultant (Stantec) to monitor the site prior to restoration, and for an additional five years following restoration. Environmental monitoring included aquatic and terrestrial habitat components, slope stability and riparian vegetation recovery, Himalayan blackberry regrowth, insitu water quality, gravel distribution as well as monitoring of benthic invertebrates and amphibians (Reference # 6, Page 7 of 42). The restoration area included three zones: off-site compensation (discussed in preceding section) and areas upstream and downstream of Ward Road. Downstream of Ward Road, the Restoration Plan (Reference # 2) is focused on restoring the channel using three boulder complexes, re-establishing channel substrate, and the mitigation of Himalayan blackberry regrowth (Reference # 2, Page 2 of 9). Upstream of Ward Road, the Restoration Plan included placing woody debris to provide amphibian habitat as well as planting native shrubs to provide additional bank stability (Reference # 2, Page 1 of 9). Staff notes that in 2012, the environmental consultant recommended no further removal of Himalayan blackberry from the site (Reference # 5, Page 9 of 42). The consultant indicated that further removal of the plant may increase the risk of de-stabilizing the steep creek banks, and that with extensive amounts of the plant present off-site, recolonization would be difficult to prevent.

- 4 - Long-term monitoring was conducted at the site by an environmental consulting company. Staff understands that TMPU considers restoration work to be complete on site, with the exception of the offsite1:1 habitat compensation commitment. At this time, staff have not identified non-compliance with respect to TMPU s restoration work at the site. Should future non-compliance be identified, appropriate enforcement action would be taken. Two NEB Inspections have been conducted at the site following the incident; a 2006 NEB Inspection (Reference #1) and a 2013 NEB Inspection (together with other sites) (Reference # 7). The 2013 Inspection was completed after the last year of monitoring that was conducted as per the monitoring plan (Reference # 5). No non-compliances were identified at this site during the two inspections. 3. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Work in 2014: Staff reviewed Reference # 8, a 2014 O&M Notification in order to determine if the Notification was related to the remediation of the site. The Notification indicates that in addition to the NEB, TMPU notified the landowner and the City of Abbotsford prior to conducting the work. The securement of a Water Act approval from the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission was also reported. Staff confirmed with the company that this work was unrelated to the remediation work and the site. The purpose of the work was a validation dig conducted in response to an Inline Inspection (ILI) tool run. Staff confirmed that no product was released or discovered during the work. In conclusion, staff did not identify any issues with this work, which was determined to be unrelated to remediation work at the site. 4. Remediation Process - Current Status of this Site Staff reviewed remediation work conducted to date at this site. During the review, staff identified one potential issue: communication to the Board in advance of the decommissioning of a set of groundwater monitoring wells at the site. A 2016 annual update from TMPU indicated that a group of groundwater monitoring wells were decommissioned in July of 2015, and that no groundwater monitoring wells currently remain at the site. Staff noted the following in a 5 March 2008 Board letter to TMPU (Reference # 4), sent in response to a filing in accordance with the Remediation Process: Trans Mountain shall advise the Board of the status of the remaining wells and seek Board approval prior to removing any additional wells. In addition, the Board expects an update on the progress of restoration upstream and downstream of Ward Road by 1 April 2008. In order to clarify the current status of the monitoring wells, staff sent IR 2 to TMPU. As part of the IR 2 Response (Reference # 11), the company provided communication between TMPU and NEB staff regarding the wells. Staff notes that these communications are dated prior to the decommissioning of the

- 5 - wells. Communications included those during the 2013 NEB Inspection, as noted below in the Inspection Report (Reference # 7, Page 2 of 2): The week of November 2013, TMPU is expected to have 22 monitoring wells from the site removed with the use of a drill rig. When asked how the wells would be removed, TMPU representatives indicated that wells will be removed according the required BC MoE procedures where wells deeper than 4.5 meters will have additional work done with bentonite plugs being inserted. Information Request 2 also confirmed that the wells were decommissioned in accordance with provincial groundwater regulations. Staff does not have concerns regarding the decommissioning of groundwater wells following the review of the IR 2 (Reference # 11). Information Request 3 was sent to TMPU to verify whether an update on the progress of restoration was provided to the Board. As part of the IR 3 Response (Reference #12), the company submitted communication dated 1 April 2008 from TMPU to NEB staff which included an update on the restoration progress upstream and downstream of Ward Road. In order for this site to be granted a remediation closure letter, TMPU will need to complete the following steps to the satisfaction of the Board: Completion of the 1:1 habitat compensation commitment; and Closure request filing. Conclusion: No non-compliances regarding environmental protection were identified by staff during the file review. TMPU has been reminded to follow appropriate mechanisms when notifying or seeking approval of the Board. Based on the information reviewed, TMPU has adequately managed this site in accordance with the NEB s Remediation Process. The NEB continues to monitor the site until the above steps are complete to the satisfaction of the Board.