Grassy Point LNG Transhipment and Storage Terminal Project Comprehensive Study Report

RA Response to Public Comments on CSR

(April 28 to May 28, 2008)

Submission Number

Originator and Issues

Responsible Authorities Responses

1 Newfoundland Transhipment Limited Main concern is with respect to the potential exclusion zones around liquid natural gas vessels in transit and at berth in Placentia Bay and how that will affect NTLs vessel schedules between the offshore oil fields, Whiffen Head facility and the US seaboard. Due to the nature of NTLs business which is providing flexibility in the transportation systems that carry crude oil production from the Hibernia and Terra Nova fields to markets along the eastern US seaboard, they cant tolerate any imposition on their ability to schedule shipping in and out of the Whiffen Head Terminal.

Section 2.4.2 of the CSR states that there is no requirement for exclusion zones around the jetties or tug basin during operation of this facility. The need for exclusion zones around LNG vessels transiting within Placentia Bay will be evaluated during the ongoing TERMPOL Review Process. Comment Noted.

2 Town of Arnolds Cove Fully supports the project.

Comment Noted.

3 Arnolds Cove Chamber of Commerce Fully supports the project.

Comment Noted.

4a and 4b Canadian Marine & Industrial Inc. Fully supports the project.

Comment Noted.

5 125 Private Citizens Arnolds Cove, NL 125 people signed a petition supporting the project.

Petition Noted.

6 Town of Southern Harbour Fully supports the project.

Comment Noted.

7 Parsons Trucking Limited Fully supports the project.

Comment Noted.

8 Private CitizenParadise, NL The study lacks objectivity:

limiting the studys scope increases the

The scope of project for this assessment includes the major components of the development proposal (i.e. construction,

likelihood that the study will reach a conclusion that favours the proponent;

there is insufficient opportunity and

capacity for interested parties to challenge the study and to provide expert, critical analysis; and

given that increased marine traffic in an environmentally /navigationally high risk area, is one of, if not the major factor increasing the risk of a collision or grounding, any study which puts such matters outside the scope of the study because such issues and regulations fall under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act lacks credibility and favours the proponent.

The studys conclusion is not supported by a rational analysis/decision process:

the report is largely a collection of data (it lacks cohesion/meaning/ interconnectedness); and

operations and decommissioning/abandonment of the marine terminal, tug basin, marine intakes and outfalls, and the LNG storage tanks). During the Environmental Assessment (EA) process there were 3 opportunities for the pubic to participate as per Sections 21 and 22 of CEAA. Also, the proponent held several public consultation sessions which are detailed in Section 6.2 of the CSR. Participant Funding was made available by the CEA Agency in the initial stages of this EA. A funding review committee, independent of the EA process was established to examine all funding applications received for this project. Section 11.1.1.3 of the CSR details potential accidents/malfunctions related to the Marine Vessel Traffic. However, the activity of shipping is not included in the scope of project as shipping is an activity not listed on the Inclusion List Regulation of CEAA. Shipping is regulated and monitored under the Canada Shipping Act. The CSR has been prepared to satisfy the requirements Section 16(1) and 16(2) of CEAA.

there is no site-specific quantification of

the areas marine risk and therefore no rational basis on which to put forward the position that there is a high level of confidence that an accident is not likely to occur.

The study lacks specifics and is adequate with respect to mitigative measures:

the existing Marine Communications and Traffic Service (MCTS) provided by Coast Guard largely provides a passive monitoring service. MCTS has a limited authority to direct ships and is profoundly limited with respect badly needed pre-established operational traffic regulating/management procedures;

the Placentia Bay MCTS service/zone

needs to shift away from what is largely a passive monitoring service towards a more positive control service/zone; and

There is a TERMPOL process ongoing for this project. The TERMPOL process is used by Transport Canada in determining the need for making or revising specific regulations or for implementing special precautionary measures that may affect a ships operation within a particular marine terminal system. It is also used to propose to the proponent measures that would improve the safety of tanker and marine terminal operations. Key aspects of the TERMPOL review includes, but is not limited to, evaluating potential for vessel accidents/incidents, cargo carriage and tank design, ship specifications, route analysis, navigability survey, and numerous other aspects of the vessel route and operation. The spatial boundaries for the ongoing TERMPOL process is Placentia Bay in its entirety. There is an operational Marine Communications Traffic Services (MCTS) centre for Placentia Bay. The MCTS in Argentia is staffed with highly qualified professionals using the most recent technologies to provide marine safety communications and regulate vessel traffic movements. In addition, Placentia Bay is a compulsory pilotage zone. From the Red Island Pilot Station, inbound and outbound tanker and large vessels are required to have an Atlantic Pilotage Authority pilot on board who has extensive local knowledge. Pilots within Placentia Bay are regulated by the Atlantic Pilotage Authority and comply with a strict work-to-rest ratio. Local operating procedures have been revised and amended when necessary to ensure safe transit of tanker traffic within the Bay. The current infrastructure at MCTS in Argentia is capable of providing required

radar coverage, staffing levels, the vessel

traffic zone limit, the two-way route, and other preventative measures are inadequate and need to be reassessed/updated and critically/objectively assessed by outside experts.

vessel management and other services to the marine users of Placentia Bay. In addition Automated Identification System (AIS) equipment will be installed and operational by 2010.

9 Town of Clarenville Fully supports the project.

Comment Noted.

10 Fish, Food and Allied Workers Industrial marine traffic associated with the proposed refinery would more than double in what is a heavily fished, transport corridor. It is difficult to imagine how they could maintain their current activities in the face of this increased activity. Concerned with the level of environmental risk associated with the rapid and substantial increase in the transport of petroleum products in and out of the bay.

As per existing operational procedures, LNG tankers will transit within the existing traffic lanes. Fishing vessels can fish within the traffic lanes but must not impede tankers which are transiting within the inbound and outbound lanes. Transport Canada is responsible for the management and governance of Canadas Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime, while the Canadian Coast Guard is the lead agency for the response component on behalf of the Government of Canada. Thus, when a marine incident occurs, the CCG will use their expertise to ensure an appropriate response to the incident. Where a polluter has been identified and is willing and able to respond, the CCG will advise the polluter of its responsibilities and,

Any further increase in industrial activity and tanker traffic in Placentia Bay is incompatible with current levels of fishing activities in the bay. Figure 9.23 is not an accurate representation of the number of enterprises in those communities in the bottom of Placentia Bay. Tables 9.21 and 9.22 represent the average landing amounts for all species in Statistical Section 30 and are incorrect because the landing station is often determined by a number of factors, such as: economic reasons, fuel prices, weather, migration of fish, season, prices and logistics. Traditional fishing grounds have been and will be

once satisfied with the polluters intentions and plans, the CCG will monitor the polluters response and provide advice and guidance as required. However, in those cases where the polluter is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond, the CCG will assume overall management to ensure appropriate response to the incident. The activity of shipping is not included in the scope of project as shipping is an activity not listed on the Inclusion List Regulation of CEAA. Shipping is regulated and monitored under the Canada Shipping Act. However, a Fisheries Resource Survey detailing fishing enterprises, harvesting areas, processing plants, aquaculture, vessel crossing points, and risk mitigation within Placentia Bay are required for the TERMPOL Review Process. Table 9.23 has been updated to include 2007 year end licensing data on fishing enterprises in Statistical Section (SS) 30. The original table included two communities which are outside the geographic boundary of SS 30, namely South East Bight & Monkstown. These two communities have been removed from the revised table (attached). Tables 9.21 and 9.22 have been updated with the most recent commercial catch d