Kinder Morgan Edmonton Rail Terminal – Design and Construction within 19 months of a 4.6 mile long Spiral Loop for crude oil loading of unit trains with service connections to CN and CP Paul Li Senior Rail Planner, Transportation AECOM 17007 – 107 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5S 1G3 phone: 780-486-7914 email: paul.li@aecom.com Lance Pepper, PL (Eng), R.E.T. AECOM Associate Vice President, Canada West District, Rail 17007 – 107 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5S 1G3 phone: 780-486-7098 email: lance.pepper@aecom.com Les Gould Project Coordinator Rangeland Engineering Ltd. Suite 400, 534 – 17 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2S 0B1 phone: 403-441-4703 email: les.gould@rangelandeng.com Complete document = 6191 words + 5 figures – equivalent to 7441 words ABSTRACT Kinder Morgan Canada Terminals initiated the engineering design, planning, and construction of a new Rail Terminal in Edmonton (ERT) in March 2013 for sustainable crude oil loading of up to three 150 car or four 114 car unit trains per day, dependent on train arrival pattern. Construction of the facility is targeted for completion in November 2014. The green field site is bordered on all sides by an arterial road, major power line corridors, and is bisected by 8 pressurized underground pipelines and 1 sanitary sewer. The restricted site requires the loop to be designed in a spiral configuration with service connections to both CN and CP within close proximity of their automatic interlocking. A continuous rack with 38 loading stations on each side will load 2 trains simultaneously. A 150 car train would be loaded in 4 sequential cycles within 12 hours without being broken apart. A 114 car train would be loaded in 3 sequential cycles within 9 hours. The 2 loading tracks will be fed by 4 R&D tracks to receive and depart trains. An inbound train staged on the inner receiving track would be pulled onto the tail track before loading outward onto the outer departure track. The engineering design process from concept through detailed design was completed within a 6 month period ending in September 2013, involving up to 10 consultants working in collaboration. This paper presents the rail related design and innovative approaches to resolving operational, technical, schedule, and construction challenges.

© AREMA 2014 1

INTRODUCTION Kinder Morgan Canada Terminals (KMCT) is constructing a new Edmonton Rail Terminal (ERT) in Strathcona County, Alberta. ERT is a high-capacity facility for loading unit trains with crude oil, fed from their existing Edmonton (pipeline) Terminal. The ERT is designed for the following projected rail traffic with service connections to both CN and CP:

Base Case – 100,000 bbls/day – 1 to 2 unit trains/day with up to 120 cars/train Expansion Case – 250,000 bbls/day – 3 unit trains/day with up 150 cars/train, or 4 unit trains/day with 114

cars/train, on average The project is to be completed within a 19 month period from conception to completion with the following milestones:

Engineering feasibility and conceptual design – March to May, 2013 Detailed Engineering Design:

o Rail plant and site development – May to September, 2013 o Mechanical and process system – May 2013 to April 2014

Construction: o Earthwork, drainage, and tracks – October 2013 to September 2014 o Mechanical and process system – July to September, 2014 o Construction complete – November 2014

In view of the tight project schedule, the design and permitting works were awarded to various consultants:

Rail plant, earthwork, and drainage – AECOM Site power, building, mechanical and process system – Rangeland Engineering Upstream feeding pipeline and existing KMCT pipeline terminal (separate project) – Worley Parsons Underground pipeline crossings – Three Streams Engineering & CCI Complete Crossings Inc. Overhead power line crossings – Depal Consulting Environmental impact assessment – Stantec Consulting Geotechnical investigation – Thurber Engineering Site survey – Challenger Geomatics

In addition, the KMCT in-house project team retained a rail specialist, Roger Stenvold of Ro-Alan Enterprises, to assist in the project development and negotiations with the two railways and the Alberta Transport Railway Safety Branch. Other permitting was handled in-house by KMCT. PROJECT SITE AND ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The green field site is located within one and a half quarter section of land owned by Imperial Oil Ltd (IOL) – an ExxonMobil company – who is a partner with KMCT in the joint venture. The site is located immediately east of the City of Edmonton, Alberta, in Strathcona County – see Figure 1.

© AREMA 2014 2

FIGURE 1 – The Project Site and Original Concept

Figure provided by KMCT at start of project

The site is bordered by Railway Street on the north side and 17th Street NW on the east side. The CN Camrose Subdivision is located on the west side and the CP Scotford Subdivision is on the north-western corner. The two railway main tracks cross each other with a “diamond” crossing with automatic interlocking. Both railway lines are separated from the site by major power transmission lines. A major pipeline corridor, consisting of eight pressurized transmission pipelines and one sanitary sewer line, bisects the site. An existing production well occupies a portion of the southern property through a lease from IOL.

© AREMA 2014 3

The topography of the green field site slopes down from the south-eastern corner to the north-west at an average grade of 1.5%. An existing drainage path runs from the east through the site to the west, which includes a small wetland area. The original KMCT concept was to locate the new ERT facility within a compact northern area, leaving undeveloped property to the south for other future businesses that were not currently defined. DESIGN – CRITERIA, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS Although in the Base Case, the ERT is required to load only 1 to 2 unit trains per day of up to 120 cars each for USA destinations, the facility is designed for the Expansion Case – an average of 3 or 4 unit trains per day with up to 150 or 114 cars each going to any destinations in North America. Design Train Length The facility is designed to accommodate different train lengths in the Base Case and Expansion Case. Design Car Length The facility is designed to accommodate a variety of rail car capacities and sizes, but optimized for 29,000 gallon coiled and insulated tank cars. The length of the optimized car would range from 58’ 6-1/2” (Union Tank Car) to 59’ 4-1/2” (Trinity) between coupler pulling faces. To accommodate train slacks and minor variations of individual car lengths (58’ to 62’ with a +/- 3’ for hatch location), the following Design Car Length is used:

For track length calculation – based on 61’ 0” per car For loading pipe rack calculation – based on 62’ 0” per car

Base Case – Up to 120 Cars In the Base Case, each unit train could be hauling 85 to 120 tank cars. The longest train is assumed to consist of 120 tank cars powered with 3 locomotives (6-axle 4,400 hp AC) at head end plus 1 spacer car to separate the operating locomotives from the tank cars.

Design Train Length = 121 cars @ 61’ + 3 locomotives @ 75’ = 7,606’ Expansion Case – Up to 150 Cars In the Expansion Case, the longest train is assumed to consist of 150 tank cars powered with 4 locomotives (2 at head end, 2 at rear end) plus 2 spacer cars to separate the 2 operating locomotive consists from the tank cars.

Design Train Length = 152 cars @ 61’ + 4 locomotives @ 75’ = 9,572’ Loading Process Each unit train is to be loaded in sequential stages through a loading rack without being switched apart in cuts. In order to load an average of 3 long unit trains per day in the Expansion Case, i.e. up to 4 trains within a 24 hour period, the loading rack needs to be able to load two trains simultaneously on both sides, turning over each train with up to 150 cars in less than 12 hours, including spotting, sequential progressions, and moving the train out to a departure track. A 150 car train would need to be loaded in 4 sequences with 38 loading stations on the rack. The actual loading time would be 10 hours for the 4 sequences, or 2.5 hours for each 38 car segment including hooking up, fill, and unhooking. The remaining 2 hours per train are for positioning each segment, securing the tank cars, and safety inspections. Individual rail cars will be filled at a maximum rate of 352 gpm (80 m3/hr). This rate is limited by the 3” railcar connection. The individual railcar rate will be modulated by a control valve at each loading spot, and controlled by Acculoads. The pumping rate to the ERT is determined by the capacity of the Edmonton Terminal booster pumps and formally controlled via set point at the ERT. Each side of the platform has 2 dedicated pumps (total of 4 booster pumps) with a shared spare. The design case is 15,850 gpm (3,600 m3/hr) – 7,925 gpm (1,800 m3/hr) per side of loading platform – with provisions for up to 20,253 gpm (4,600 m3/hr) – 10,127 gpm (2,300 m3/hr) per side of

© AREMA 2014 4

loading platform – based on weather and viscosity considerations. As railcars are connected by operators and permissives are met, the Edmonton Terminal pumps will start. When an individual railcar is connected, it will initially fill at 75 gpm (17 m3/hr) until the fill tube is submerged. Flow will then be increased to the maximum capacity of the pumps with a limit of 352 gpm (80 m3/hr) per car. The initial fill flow limit and the maximum flow limit are both required for static building up safety. The typical flow profile for the first and last railcars filled is shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2 – Flow Profile for First and Last Railcars Loaded

In the Base Case for 120 car trains, 30 stations for one side loading only would be adequate, but 32 loading stations are being constructed. Due to the limited length of this site, the maximum tangent track length available can only accommodate 32 loading stations. The 6 additional loading stations for future construction in the Expansion Case would need to be located between curved tracks. These 6 future loading stations require special design considerations to address the additional clearance required between the pipe rack structure and each track due to curvature. Movable access gangways are required for each loading station to accommodate varied tank car lengths ranging between 58’ and 62’ with a +/- 3’ for hatch location. Each loading position has a dedicated continuously tracking 4’ wide gangway. Depending on the distance away from the spotting location, each loading position will have 1, 2, or 3 loading arms. As distance increases away from the train spotting location, the variation in hatch location increases beyond the reach of the standard loading arm. To accommodate this large variation, additional loading arms were added as required. To minimize pressure drops in the system, a 4” loading arm was selected. This arm is boom supported with split flange swivel joints for operations and maintenance ease. Integral with the liquid loading arm is a 2” flexhose vapor arm. At the end of both the product and the vapor arms are manual ball valves with limit switches. The arms terminate with cam and grove type connections. Prior to loading, the grounding system, level probe and vapor arm and liquid arm must be connected to the railcar. For the first set of railcars, these connections send permissives to the Edmonton Terminal pumps allowing them to start and open a flow path via motor operated valves. For subsequent railcars, the permissives are required to open the flow path to the railcars. A safe environment for the operators of the facility is of paramount importance to Kinder Morgan. This is the primary driver of the closed system loading along with the mitigation of environmental impacts. The vapor

© AREMA 2014 5

connection collects all railcar vapors and sends them to a high efficiency incinerator. The vapor collection header will be purged with nitrogen. The necessity for 6 additional loading stations per side along the curve portion of the platform with continuously tracking gangways posed a unique challenge both from a logistical perspective and in regard to basic additional dimensional constraints (for each degree of curvature the rail clearance envelope increases by 1”). To accommodate these restricted dimensions, a unique design for the rail platform cross section in the curve was used. The primary conflict is with the tracking gangways. The design maintains the column spacing and clearance for the portable meter prover operated below the platform, but tapers at the working level. Thus, the curve section piping and equipment layout is slightly different to the linear section of the platform. Based on the spotting location selected (optimal for the joint consideration of Base Case and Expansion Case to minimize the number of loading arms required), the curve requires continual loading arm access and hence continuous tracking gangways. Tracking gangways along curves is not typically seen in the industry, particularly on tight curves. To ensure operability of the tracking gangways on the curve, a full scale model of a gangway tracking on a curve of larger than the design curvature was created and witnessed. The system design challenges included but were not limited to the following:

Minimizing pressure drops in system to accommodate available head from Edmonton Terminal pumps. Maximizing allocated width between rail tracks to ensure all clearance requirements are met for rail

envelopes, operator access and safety, including the additional constraints imposed by the curvature. Maximizing space under platform to accommodate portable meter prover. Optimizing spotting location and loading arm locations for two different design scenarios (Base and

Expansion Cases) with large variability in railcar lengths. Maximizing space on pipe rack along platform to accommodate multiple product loading scenarios

(requires additional headers). Rail Plant In the Expansion Case, the facility needs to load two unit trains, with up to 150 cars each, simultaneously on both sides of the single loading platform in 4 sequences of 38 cars at a time. This would require 2 separate loading tracks with adequate upstream length for the empty train and downstream length for the loaded train. The continuous length of the track on each side of the loading rack must accommodate one empty train and one loaded train plus clearance allowance for any turnouts required. Spiral Loop Configuration If the 2 loading tracks are configured as a continuous 2 train-length loop of 2 concentric tracks, the continuous loop would be in excess of 20,000’ in length. Such a continuous loop could not be fitted within the available site of approximately 3,000’ × 2,000’ with only 10,000’ of perimeter length. Although a continuous 1 train-length loop with safety buffer between head end and tail end of the train could be designed with a 10,200’ length, such configuration is efficient only for single train loading. With 2 concentric loading tracks, a train being loaded on the exterior track would restrict access to or egress from the interior track. Locating additional alternate access/egress crossovers is not practical for the variety of train lengths for 85 to 150 cars. KMCT decided that the rail plant would be configured as a spiral loop to maximize site capacity. The final spiral loop concept, after various discussions with KMCT and revisions, is schematically shown in Figure 3.

© AREMA 2014 6

FIGURE 3 – The Spiral Loop Concept

Interchange R&D Yard A spiral loop has only one single portal for train entry and exit. A receiving and departure (R&D) yard, with 4 receiving and departure (R&D) tracks to handle the Expansion Case design traffic, is to be located between the portal and the loading rack. This is the interchange yard where the responsibility for the trains is transferred between KMCT and the hauling railways (CN & CP). Spotting and progressing the trains for loading is to be handled by a KMCT crew using the railway road power that arrived with the trains. DTL Fueling Before Departure The railways wish to “top off” the locomotive fuel tanks before train departure. Fueling would be done direct to locomotives (DTL) with tanker trucks. A DTL fueling pad is required along each departure track at the exit end of the R&D yard. To avoid the need to construct fueling pads for the interior R&D tracks and the associated truck crossings, the two exterior R&D tracks are dedicated as departure tracks for loaded trains and the two interior R&D tracks as receiving tracks for staging or storage of the inbound empty trains when the rack track is loading another train. When a loading track is vacant, an inbound empty train could be yarded on the associated departure track. Another DTL fueling pad is also required at the end of the tail tracks for the tail end locomotives in the Expansion Case when distributed power is deployed for the 150 car trains. Locomotive Runaround Flexibility must be incorporated in the design so that an empty train could be loaded in either direction:

Inward from the R&D track to the tail track and then moved back to the R&D yard after completion, or First moved to a tail track then loaded outward back to the R&D yard.

With a spiral loop design, the locomotives of a shorter train (up to 120 cars), powered only at the head end, must run around on a vacant track to the other end of the train before departure in the reversed direction. This flexibility eliminates the need for a third track in the tail portion for locomotives to run around the 120 car trains.

© AREMA 2014 7

A crossover is strategically placed for locomotive runaround on Tail Track 1. Tail Track 2, which is to be constructed in the Expansion Case, does not have this capability. Running around is not an issue with the longer 150 car trains with distributed power at both ends. To avoid any track-train dynamic risk when shoving a long string of empty cars, KMCT would station an in-plant locomotive at the end of the tail track for pulling the empty train from the receiving track to the tail track and positioning the train for the first sequence of loading when required. Spacer Car Runaround Regulations in the USA require a minimum of one spacer car be placed between any operating locomotives and tank cars carrying hazardous materials in unit train operations – more spacer cars for manifest trains. Current regulations in Canada require spacer cars only for manifest trains. CN and CP desire to have the spacer car placed in each unit train set in both loaded and empty runs to avoid switching enroute. For the shorter trains powered only at the head end, the spacer car would need to be run around with the locomotive consist. A short pocket track with a 2 car capacity is designed off the main entry/exit lead for this purpose. The locomotives would run around the train with the spacer car and shove the spacer car onto the pocket track. The locomotives would then run around the spacer car before shoving to couple at the other end of the train. Bad Order Tracks KMCT estimated that 2% to 5% of the railcars handled per day could be “bad ordered” for repairs. The SW corner was chosen as the logical site for the bad order (BO) facility due to its remoteness from the crude oil loading operation yet efficient for BO setoff and switching. Any product or residual will be transferred by a pump truck to another tank-truck or railcar before repair. In the Base Case, 4 tracks are being constructed for the following activities:

2 tracks of 9 car spots each for BO setoff – a portion of one track is dedicated for product transfer 2 tracks of 11 car spots each for BO repair – one track is equipped with jacking pad for wheel change

The dedicated track segment for product transfer to another vehicle must be bonded and grounded and comply with current regulatory offset distance limits as following:

25 ft. from adjacent property line 25 ft. from a railway main track – CN requires 100 ft. 300 ft. from a building or a place of public assembly or a residence 150 ft. from a storage warehouse, a grain elevator, or any building other than those mentioned above

The developed Base Case BO facility site could accommodate up to 7 tracks with a total capacity for 51 railcars with room for further expansion as required. CN and CP Connections The unit trains would be hauled by CN or CP depending on the destinations, transit time, and freight rate. The CN main line is located north of the ERT site. Empty trains returning from CN would arrive from the north via their Camrose Subdivision. The CP main line is located in the south. Empty trains returning from CP would arrive from the south via their Calgary-Edmonton line and the Scotford Subdivision. The CN Camrose Subdivision and the CP Scotford Subdivision cross each other with an automatic interlocking crossing at the north-western corner of the ERT site. The ERT site, bordered by two public roads at the north and east sides, does not have the required space for looping one of the two railway connections around to access the single portal of the spiral loop, except with a new second automatic interlocking crossing. Either CN or CP would have to runaround the locomotives of their shorter trains on their line before entry to and after exit from the ERT spiral loop. The CN entry/exit switch comes off the Camrose Subdivision at Mile 2.73, south of the diamond crossing, in the vicinity of the existing underground pipeline crossing location to avoid further pipeline protection work.

© AREMA 2014 8

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) on the CN Camrose Subdivision ends at Mile 4.8, two miles south of the new ERT entry/exit switch. The railway crossing at grade with the CP Scotford Subdivision is controlled with an automatic interlocking crossing as the CP line is within “Cautionary Limits”. The switch off the CN CTC main track and the “back to back” switch (CN/CP switch) to the CP connecting track are power operated and controlled by the CN rail traffic controller (RTC). The CN/CP switch is to be lined normal to the CP lead when not used by CN. CP trains will make a “request for signals” to the CN RTC to operate through the CN/CP switch. This arrangement eliminates the need for a switch point derail on the CN lead for protection of the CN main track. A hand-operated switch point derail is installed at the north end of the CP lead. CTC signal circuitry for these new switches was designed and wired by CN. As part of the ERT site security system, a rail entry/exit gate will be installed a short distance south of the CN/CP switch. This gate will be automatically controlled by the CN signals system. Spiral Loop Alignment and Profile Design Alignment of the tracks is curved counter-clockwise into a spiral loop configuration as shown in Figure 4.

© AREMA 2014 9

FIGURE 4 – The Spiral Loop Layout

© AREMA 2014 10

The east segment of the spiral loop was designed at a skewed angle to achieve the maximum tangent length possible for the loading rack and to avoid the existing production well site at the south end with a significantly higher ground elevation. Even so, only a maximum of 32 loading stations could be achieved between tangent tracks. These 32 loading stations are being constructed in the initial Base Case for loading the 120 car trains. The 6 loading stations for the Expansion Case have been designed for placement between curved loading tracks. The west segment of the spiral loop was then designed to achieve the required length for the R&D tracks. The maximum curvature achieved for the most interior track on the north and south curve is 12° 00’. Each consecutive outer track on these curves was off-set from the inner track at the regulatory required track centers with slightly shallower curvature. The two tail tracks at the south curve were shifted away from the R&D tracks to achieve the 12° 00’ curvature. Current CN Engineering Specifications for Industrial Tracks limit the maximum curvature of any tracks handling hazardous materials or for unit train operations to 7° 30’. Achieving such shallow curvature for the ERT spiral loop within the limited site dimensions is geometrically not possible. It took months of negotiations and investigations prior to CN giving their final approval for the curvature exemption with the condition that all tracks exceeding 6° 00’ must be installed on No. 1 hardwood ties with premium fastening and 12” of main line grade crushed rock ballast. Lubricators are also required at strategic locations to minimize wheel and rail wear. CN have also accepted the use of No.8 turnouts within the ERT rail plant except for the four turnouts of the main lead to the R&D tracks, which must conform to their current specifications for No.10’s. A portion of the interior area of the spiral loop is used for pipe manifold and line displacement tanks. An overpass of the rail loop is being constructed at the north-eastern corner of the site for vehicle access to this interior space. A vehicle crossing at grade of the spiral loop is located at the south-western corner as a secondary emergency access. Rail Loading Rack and Loading Stations The two loading tracks for the Expansion Case will be serviced by a single, dual sided loading platform. Each side of the platform will have 38 railcar loading positions. Each position will have 1, 2, or 3 loading arms, depending on the distance from spotting location. The loading arms will be clearly marked both visually and in the control system. It is the operator’s responsibility after the train is spotted to ensure the closest loading arm in multi loading arm stations is selected for loading.

FIGURE 5 – Typical Rail Loading Rack Section

© AREMA 2014 11

The platform has multiple levels. The ground level is unobstructed for the portable small volume meter prover access. The main operator level includes operator buildings, gangways, loading arms and metering. Above the operator level is the main pipe rack. The platform is protected by a roof which extends past the centerline of railcars. Fire protection for the platform consists of multiple ground level hydrants and an overhead foam deluge system. For egress, there are 5 walkways from the platform across the rail tracks. The main crossing is from the office buildings. The remaining crossings are for access and emergency considerations. On-track drip pans under the railcars will collect rain water and send it to an underground API Oil/Water Separator. Track Grounding and Railcar Grounding Both the rail tracks and loading platform are permanently bonded and grounded. In addition, railcars are grounded during the loading process so that any static is safely discharged to the ground. As a unit train at the ERT is to be loaded in 3 or 4 sequential stages through the loading platform, the train will be standing on different segment of the spiral loop in each stage. All tracks within the spiral loop, from a point on each of the 4 R&D tracks after the turnouts off the CN lead to the end of both tail tracks, are bonded together and grounded per federal and provincial regulations. Storm Water Management An existing drainage path runs from the east through the site to the west. Three existing culverts under 17th Street channel surface water from the upstream water shed through the ERT site for final discharge at the north-western corner and into the County’s downstream system. The County restricts this discharge from the ERT site to a maximum of 0.44 gal/s/acre (4.1 litre/s/ha) for the drainage area. This restriction does not apply to the existing upstream flow east of 17th Street. After a detailed hydrologic analysis, considering various options and confirming with computer simulations, the AECOM drainage team determined that the best approach was to manage the onsite storm water with a self-contained drainage system, bypassing the upstream flow along the western and northern perimeter with another separate system. Both systems are designed to handle a 100-year rainfall event. Onsite Storm Water Management The onsite drainage area is 185 acres with approximately 45 acres of impervious (rail tracks, roadways, and office area) and 140 acres of pervious surface. Runoff from these areas is collected by drainage ditches along the inside and outside of the spiral loop (track and road embankment). The open ditches are linked together with 36” diameter culverts, except for those in the south-western corner which are 24” diameter, and channeled to a storm water pond at the north-western corner of the site. Headwater to culvert diameter ratio is equal to 1.0 or less. Another open channel connects the small wetland area with the interior ditch. The storm water pond has a designed capacity of 9.6 million gallons (36,470 m3). An oil/grit separator is installed at the pond outlet to provide further treatment of the storm water prior to release. Discharge to the County downstream system is regulated with a 15” diameter orifice plate and baffle within the oil/grit separator with the invert elevation at normal water level. The peak discharge from this facility during a 100-year/24-hour event will be 82 gal/s. Offsite Storm Water Management The upstream offsite drainage basin is approximately 230 acres. The surface runoff is channeled through three 36” diameter culverts under 17th Street to the ERT site. Clay berms are constructed along the west side of 17th Street to create depression storage for more than 2.5 million gallons to stage the flow into a new pipe system. The 1,877 ft. long 36” diameter pipe system with 6 manholes conveys the upstream storm water around the north-eastern corner of the ERT site to an open ditch along the south side of Railway Street for final discharge to the County downstream

© AREMA 2014 12

system. A 24” diameter orifice plate and baffle in the first manhole control the flow into the pipe system. The outlet peak flow for a 100-year/24-hour storm event is determined by computer modelling to be 248 gal/s (940 l/s). Soil Management and Earthwork As the spiral loop tracks must be relatively level, the existing 1.5% ground slope from the SE corner to the NW resulted in up to 30 ft. of excavation depth to the track bed. The quantities of earthwork were estimated as following:

Top soil stripping = 242,000 cubic yards Excavation to fill = 200,000 cubic yards Excavation to waste = 1,190,000 cubic yards

Except for a portion reused on disturbed ground for grass reseeding, the remaining top soil was used to construct a berm along the 17th Street. The 1.19 million cubic yards of excess excavation were wasted in the interior area of the spiral loop. Underground Pipeline Crossings There are 8 existing pressurized transmission pipelines and 1 sanitary sewer bisecting the ERT site. Due to the major excavation requirement down to the track elevation, the 8 pressurized transmission pipelines need to be lowered by 36 ft. or more. Relocated pipelines were installed in a new right-of-way along the north side of the corridor at the required elevation and cut in before removal of the existing ones. Relocation of the gravity flow sewer was originally conceived, however by raising the rail yard and pipe rack elevations, Three Streams Engineering came up with a design acceptable to the County to replace the existing one with a new sewer in the same location at lower elevations. Detailed design to lower the pipelines and sewer by Three Streams Engineering is not presented in this paper. Overhead Power Line Crossings The CN main access lead to the ERT crosses 2 high voltage power transmission corridors and 4 service lines. The CP connecting track also crosses 3 service lines. Alignment of these leads were designed to avoid any modification required for the high voltage transmission lines, but poles for the other service lines needed to be relocated to achieve required overhead clearances. The transmission line owners have approved the crossings and are currently finalizing their pole line modifications. Depal Consulting is responsible for negotiations and co-ordinations with the power companies. Details of these overhead power line crossings are not presented in this paper. PERMITTING There are various permits required for this ERT project. All applications were progressed through dedicated persons within KMCT with drawings provided by the individual designing consultants. This paper includes only permitting required for the construction of rail tracks. Environmental, energy regulator and development permitting were undertaken as part of this project but not covered in this paper. The following permits, approvals, or agreements are required from various parties or authorities before track construction could commence:

Servicing Railways (CN & CP) – approval of design Utility Owners (pipelines, power lines, communication cables) – crossing agreements Alberta Transport Railway Safety Branch – permit to construct

Submissions to the two railways and Alberta Railway Safety Commission were handled by the rail specialist, Roger Stenvold of Ro-Alan Enterprises. Agreements with the pipe owners and power line owners were negotiated by

© AREMA 2014 13

Three Stream Engineering and Depal Consulting respectively. Conditional approvals were secured in the fall of 2013 before earthwork started and finalized in the early months of 2014. PROJECT EXECUTION – MULTIPLE CONSULTANTS WITH TIGHT SCHEDULE To complete all detailed designs within the tight project schedule, works by each of the responsible consultants had to be coordinated and checked for design conflicts in a timely fashion. As the ERT business model was still evolving during the design stage, some of the design criteria and specifications continued to change and evolve during the design stage. KMCT assigned Rangeland as the lead consultant for this task. Weekly telephone conference calls and monthly face-to-face meetings of all consultants with the owner were conducted to review project progress, track design changes, resolve design conflicts, and tackle any unforeseen issues. These collaboration efforts in close frequency helped to minimize unavoidable design rework by each consultant and supported the tight delivery schedule. CONSTRUCTION – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS Construction management has been handled by KMCT personnel with a construction office onsite and engineering support from the design consultants. Due to the multiple contractors working onsite, KMCT assumed responsibility for overall safety during construction. Weekly site meetings were conducted with all consultants and contractors to resolve any issues or questions that might arise. Stripping and rough grading of the ERT site began in mid October 2013 as scheduled and continued through the winter months. The longer and colder 2013/14 winter season in Western Canada (November to May instead of the usual December to March timeframe) resulted in increased challenges to the winter construction. Anomalies, such as trailer-size rock boulders and previously unknown ground water, were encountered during grading and drainage construction. At the time of this paper submission in early June 2014, most of the earthwork has been completed. The CN lead and the bad order tracks as well as the buffer car runaround tracks are being constructed in June for material delivery. The subgrade and sub-ballast for these tracks and material lay-down area was completed as a first priority. Construction of the spiral loop will start sometime in June when the remaining earthwork is done. The rail contractor anticipates completion of all track works by November 2014. Pile foundations for the loading platform were 50% complete at the end of May with structural steel for the loading platform arriving on site as scheduled. Erection and installation of the loading facilities could be delayed by the slow progress in earthwork construction. Completion of the loading facilities, including commissioning, is also anticipated to be in November 2014. CONCLUSION A challenging project with multiple areas of complexity:

Limited start to finish timelines required the involvement of several different consultants, The need for strict project confidentiality in the early stages of project development, A strategically located green field site, surrounded on all sides by intense existing infrastructure, The need for effective and efficient service connections with both servicing railways, within the automatic

interlocking limits of their “diamond” crossing, A spiral rail loop design enabled the relatively small parcel of land to maximize its loading potential, Coordination and approval from multiple approving agencies, meaning several time sensitive delivery and

approval processes needed to be adhered to. All of this was achieved successfully because of:

The hands on daily involvement of the client Kinder Morgan and their ability to quickly provide both guidance and approval as needed.

Communication, communication, communication…weekly meetings and daily discussions between all members of the delivery team.

© AREMA 2014 14

Early involvement and discussion with the railways. The preliminary operating approvals were obtained from both railways through the extensive efforts of the client and their railway specialist Roger Stenvold.

A strong team, a knowledgeable client and supportive third party involvement from the various approving agencies all contributed to the overall success of the project. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of this paper would not have been possible without the help and support of the following companies and individuals:

Mark Wright – Kinder Morgan Canada Terminals LP Joe L. Schumacher – Imperial Oil Roger Stenvold – Ro-Alan Enterprises Ltd. Roy Mathis and Sydney Pachmann – Rangeland Engineering Co. Ltd. Julie Biluk, Kristin St. Louis, and Keith Anderson – AECOM Canada Ltd.

© AREMA 2014 15

Kin

der

Mor

gan

Edm

onto

n R

ail T

erm

inal

Des

ign

and

Con

stru

ctio

nw

ithin

19m

onth

sD

esig

n an

d C

onst

ruct

ion

with

in 1

9 m

onth

sof

a 4

.6 m

ile lo

ng S

pira

l Loo

p fo

r C

rude

Oil

load

ing

ofun

ittr

ains

with

serv

ice

conn

ectio

nsto

CN

&C

Pof

uni

t tr

ains

with

ser

vice

con

nect

ions

to

CN

& C

P

Pre

sent

atio

n by

AE

CO

Md

Rl

dE

ii

Ltd

AE

CO

M a

nd R

ange

land

Eng

inee

ring

Ltd

.w

ith s

uppo

rt f

rom

Kin

der

Mor

gan

© AREMA 2014 16

Vision and MissionNew Edmonton Rail Terminal (ERT)• Crude Oil loading of unit trains – fed from existing terminal

– Base Case – 1 to 2 trains/day with up to 120 cars/train

Expansion Case on average– Expansion Case – on average

• 3 trains/day with 150 cars/train, or

• 4 trains/day with 114 cars/train

• Need to load 2 trains simultaneously

• Service Connections to CN and CP

Project Schedule

• Feasibility and Conceptual Design – March to May 2013

• Detailed Engineering Design– Rail plant and site development – May to September 2013

M h i l d t M 2013 t A il 2014– Mechanical and process system – May 2013 to April 2014

• Construction– Earthwork, drainage, and tracks – October 2013 to September 2014

– Mechanical and process system – July 2014 to September 2014

– Completion – November 2014

Project Team• KMCT

– Project development, permitting, construction management

– Rail specialist Roger Stenvold

• AECOMRail plant earthwork and

• Worley Parsons– Upstream pipeline

• Three Streams Engineering & CCI Complete Crossings

– Pipeline crossings

• Depal ConsultingP li i– Rail plant, earthwork, and

drainage

• Rangeland Engineering– Site power, building, mechanical

and process system

• Other Consultants:

– Power line crossings

• Stantec Consulting– Environmental

• Thurber Engineering– Geotechnical

• Challenger Geometics– Site survey

Project Site• Green field site on 1 ½ quarter sections

east of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada– Owned by Imperial Oil Ltd., partner of joint

venture with KMCT

• Railways– CN Camrose Sub on the west– CP Scotford Sub at NW corner– Crossing with Automatic Interlocking

• Public Roads– 17th Street on the east– Railway Street on the north

Project Site• Major power transmission lines

between railways and ERT site

• Underground pipeline corridor bisects ERT site

• Small wetland area in northern portion of green field site

• Existing production well head lease in southern portion

• Terrain = 1.5% rising to SE

Design Criteria – Train Consists• Base Case

– Up to 120 cars

– 3 locos at head end

– 1 spacer car

Cl t k l th 7 600 ft

• Long Trains

– Up to 150 cars

– 2 locos in front, 2 at rear

– 2 spacer cars

• Short Trains– Clear track length = 7,600 ft.

• Expansion Case– Long and Short trains

depending on destinations

– Clear track length = 9,600 ft.

• Short Trains

– 114 cars

– 3 locos at head end

– 1 spacer car

• Car Length = 61 ft. with slack

© AREMA 2014 17

Design Criteria – Loading Time• Unit train loading without

being switched apart– Load in sequential cycles– Max. 4 cycles of 38 cars

• Base Case

• Design for Expansion Case– 150 car train

• 12 hours/train for average of 3 trains/dayBase Case

– 1 to 2 trains/day– Up to 120 cars/train– Load 1 train at a time– Max. 12 hours/train– Min. 30 cars/cycle

– 114 car train• 9 hours/train for

average of 4 trains/day– Simultaneous loading of 2

trains on both sides of rack with 38 stations each side

Loading Process• Weight and load volume set point• Safety check• Grounding• Vapour / Overfill Connection• Liquid Connection• Open rail car valves, open loading arm valves (limit

switches)• Permissives• Begin loading

Loading Platform

• Typical Platform Cross-Section

• Underground: Open drain systemy

• Lower Level: Mobile Meter Prover

• Mid Level: Operator Level

• Upper Level: Pipe Rack

Overfill Protection

AT RAIL CAR:• Adjustable

length

VAPOUR LINE:• Thermal

dispersion

SYSTEM:• Knock-

Out Drum

RAIL SCALE:• Tied to

UMLER

Plan to Load to Less Than Maximum Weight Allowed

length vibrating fork

• Integral with vapour recovery arm

dispersion switch

• Trips if line full of liquid

Out Drum

• High liquid level shut-down

UMLER database

• To flag large heels

Vapour RecoveryWHY?

• Safety of Operators

• Good Neighbour Policy

HOW?

• Vapours collected via direct connection to rail car

• Displacement by loading li idliquid

• Common header with nitrogen purge

• Knock-Out Drum

• Incinerator

Meter ProvingGENERAL:

• Custody Transfer

• Prover connections ground level

PROCESS:

• Grounding

• Piping connection

• Electrical connection forg

• Portable Small Volume Meter Prover

• Ergonomic design for operator safety

Electrical connection for communication to flow meter

• Open flow path

© AREMA 2014 18

Spiral Loop Best Choice for Site

• Loop length needs to accommodate 2 trains for continuous loading– 1 empty train

1 l d d i

• Site area available for tracks is limited– Approx. 3,000 ft. x 2,000 ft.

– Perimeter < 10,000 ft.– 1 loaded train

• Loop designed for 150 car trains in Expansion Case– 2 trains at 9,600 ft. clear +

turnouts & crossovers = more than 20,000 ft.

– Up to 30 ft. of excavation

• “Figure 8” types of closed loop not acceptable– Need maximum tangent

length for loading rack

Functional Design of Spiral Loop• Interchange R&D tracks with railways

– 2 receiving tracks, 2 departure tracks

• Loading rack / tail tracks– 1 each side of rack for simultaneous loading

CN d CP ti• CN and CP connections

• Crossovers• Spacer car• DTL fueling• B.O. tracks

ERT Unit Train Operations• CN Unit Trains

– Arrive from and depart to the North

• Wainwright Sub via Camrose SubCamrose Sub

• CP Unit Trains– Arrive from and depart to

the South

• Leduc Sub via Scotford Sub

CN and CP Connections• CN Camrose Sub

– CTC from Bretville Jct to 2 miles south of the ERT site

– CN switch & “back to back” CN/CP switch controlled by CN RTC

– CN/CP switch lined normal to CP

• CP Scotford Sub– Cautionary Limit from Gainer Jct to 7.4

miles north of the diamond– ERT connection to existing siding

• Diamond = automatic interlocking

Spiral Loop Layout• East segment laid at a skewed angle

– To achieve maximum tangent length for loading rack – 32 stations on tangent, 6 on curve for Expansion Case

– To avoid existing well head site at south

– To accommodate back slope space for up to 26’ deep excavation

• West segment designed– To achieve required R&D track length

– To provide space for storm water pond

– To place runaround crossovers on tangent

Spiral Loop Layout• Design speed = 10 MPH• Maximum curvature used = 12° 00’

– 31 ft. spiral easements (not for elevation)

• Conditional approval for exemption from CN standard of 7° 30’ curve max.– No.1 hardwood ties with premium

fastenings and 12” of main line grade crushed rock ballast on curves > 6°

• Turnouts used in spiral loop– No. 10 for R&D track entry/exit– No. 8 for non-railway operated tracks

© AREMA 2014 19

Road Access• Main access off Railway St.

to office area– 17th St. access only for

emergency

• Vehicle overpass to interior parea of spiral loop– Pedestrian overpass and at

grade crossing in SW corner for emergency egress/access

• Service roadway along exterior and interior tracks

R&D Track Access to Loading Rack• R&D Tracks 1 and 4

– For outbound loaded trains– Direct access from the

associated rack track

• R&D Tracks 2 and 3– 150 car train on Track 2 can

access both rack tracks– 150 car train on Track 3 can

access only Rack Track 2– 120 car train on either track can

access either rack track using the 120 car crossovers

Locomotive & Spacer Car Runaround• 150 car train powered

at both ends – no need for runaround

• 120 car train powered only at head endonly at head end– Locomotives run around

on R&D tracks or Tail Track 1 – no runaround on Tail Track 2

– Spacer car runaround on pocket tracks

Other Rail Facilities• Direct To Locomotive Fueling

– Extra road width for DTL fueling with fuel trucks

– Departure tracks and end of tail track

• Bad Order Car Facility– At SW corner off R&D lead to facilitate set-off

– 4 tracks in Base Case

– Product transferred before repair work

– Wheel rack and jacking pad for 1 track

– Expandable for Expansion Case

Spiral Loop Profile• Level loading rack tracks at highest

elevation– Train in draft forces to reduce slack actions– Downhill grade for departing loaded trains

• 3 0% cross slope on subgrade3.0% cross slope on subgrade– Facilitate drainage of rail loop to both sides– 0.62% compensated grade against inbound

empty trains on R&D tracks and lead– R&D tracks approximately same elevation to

avoid reversed vertical curves for 120 car crossovers on west segment of spiral loop

Track and Railcar Grounding• Flammable liquid loading of railcars

– Track, railcars, & loading rack must be grounded to prevent static spark that may cause a fire

• ERT trains loaded in sequential cycles– Loading train is not separated– Loading train is not separated– Train occupies different segments of R&D,

rack, and tail tracks– Complete spiral loop must be permanently

bonded and grounded together with the loading rack

• Additional grounding connection to each railcar before loading

© AREMA 2014 20

Storm Water Management• Design criteria:

– Off site drainage flows through ERT site– Discharge from site limited by County– 1/100 year storm event

• Solution:– Bypass upstream flow – 248 gal/s– Manage ERT site separately – 82 gal/s– Ditches along loop exterior & interior– Storm water pond of 9.6 million gallons– Oil/grit separator before discharge– Flow regulated by 15” diam. orifice

Soil Management and Earthwork• Spiral loop relatively level

– Existing ground 1.5% rising from NW to SE

– Up to 30 ft. excavation

Extensive earthwork

March 2014

• Extensive earthwork– Stripping = 242,000 CY

earth berms along 17th St.

– Cut to fill = 200,000 CY

– Cut to waste = 1,190,000 CY stock piled interior of loop

Underground Pipeline Crossings

• Underground pipeline crossing protection handled by Three Streams Engineering & CCI Complete Crossings– 8 pressurized pipelines relocated and lowered in elevations

– 1 gravity flow sanitary sewer lowered within same right-of-way.

Overhead Power Line Crossings• Agreement negotiation with power

line owners by Depal Consulting

• Drawings of proposed track crossings with surveyed pole/tower locations & wire heights prepared by AECOM

– Track alignment designed to avoid major tower relocation

• Pole line relocation with required wire height designed by power line ownersSample Power Line Crossing Drawing

Permitting• Environmental, energy

regulator, and local development permitting were a major part of this project but not covered in

• Railway permitting:– Servicing railways CN & CP

for approval of design– Utility owners for pipeline,

power line, & communication bl i t

p jthis presentation

• All conditional approvals secured fall of 2013 and finalized in early 2014

cable crossing agreements– Alberta Transport Railway

Safety Branch for permit to construct

• Operating Certificate as an Alberta Provincial Railway

Project Execution• Challenges:

– Tight project schedule– Multiple design consultants

working independently– ERT business model still

evolving during design stage i t t

• Solutions:– Rangeland as leader– Weekly conference calls– Monthly face-to-face

meetings– To review project progress>> moving targets

• If not managed:– Outdated design criteria– Design conflicts– Excessive design reworks

– To review project progress– To track design changes– To resolve design conflicts– To tackle unforeseen

issues

End result = minimum design reworks & on time delivery

© AREMA 2014 21

Construction• Grading and drainage

– Long winter 2013-14

– Anomalies encountered

– Mostly complete by June

• Tracks

• Managed by KMCT– Office on site

– Weekly meeting with contractors & consultants

• Tracks– Started in June 2014

– Complete in November 2014

• Loading rack– Piles 50% in May 2014

– Complete in November 2014

Conclusion• Challenges & complexity

– Limited timelines

– Confidentiality

– Site constraints

2 i i il ithi

• All achieved successfully– Hands on involvement of

Kinder Morgan with quick response on guidance and approval as needed

– 2 servicing railways within an automatic interlocking

– 4.6 mile long spiral loop with 13.7 miles of tracks

– Time sensitive delivery for approval process

pp

– Effective communication among multiple consultants

– Early involvement and discussion with both railways and approving agencies

AcknowledgementsMark Wright

Joe L. Schumacher

Roger Stenvold

Kinder Morgan Canada Terminals LP

Imperial Oil (Canada) Ltd.

Ro-Alan Enterprises Ltd.

Roy Mathis &Sydney Pachmann

Julie Biluk, Keith Anderson,Kristin St. Louis, & Kevin Bain

Rangeland Engineering Co. Ltd.

AECOM Canada Ltd.

Thank You

Les Gould

RangelandRangeland

Paul Li

AECOM

Questions?

Thank You

L G ld R l d E i iLes Gould – Rangeland Engineering

Paul Li - AECOM

© AREMA 2014 22