Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) Line 9 Reversal Phase I Project (Project)

Application under section 58 (Application) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act)

OH-005-2011

Enbridge Response to Louisette Lanteigne Information Request No. 1

File OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2011-01 1

PROLOGUE:

The preambles to several of the information requests include assertions that may not be factually

correct. Unless expressly stated otherwise, Enbridge does not concede the accuracy of any preamble or

part thereof. Similarly, Enbridge does not concede the relevance of any request to which it has provided

a response. Unless expressly stated otherwise, responses are provided only to requests as they relate to

the segment of the Line 9 pipeline between Sarnia Terminal and North Westover Pump Station and to

the period since reversal of Line 9 to its current operation (in a westward direction).

Reference: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge)

Line 9 Reversal Phase I Project (Project)Scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA)

i. Section 2.2. Factors to be considered

ii. Section 2.3 Scope of Factors to be Considered

Preamble: Under the terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act S.C 1992, c.37

“environmental effect” means, in respect of a project, health and socio-economic

conditions, physical and cultural heritage, and any change to the project that may be

caused by the environment, whether any such change or effect occurs within or outside

Canada. The purposes of this Act are

(a) to ensure that projects are considered in a careful and precautionary manner before

federal authorities take action in connection with them, in order to ensure that such

projects do not cause significant adverse environmental effects;

(b) to encourage responsible authorities to take actions that promote sustainable

development and thereby achieve or maintain a healthy environment and a healthy

economy;

(b.1) to ensure that responsible authorities carry out their responsibilities in a

coordinated manner with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication in the

environmental assessment process;

(b.2) to promote cooperation and coordinated action between federal and provincial

governments with respect to environmental assessment processes for projects;

(b.3) to promote communication and cooperation between responsible authorities and

Aboriginal peoples with respect to environmental assessment;

OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2011-01 01/Hearing Order: OH-5-2011

Enbridge Response to Louise Lanteigne IR No. 1

Page 2 of 4

(c) to ensure that projects that are to be carried out in Canada or on federal lands do not

cause significant adverse environmental effects outside the jurisdictions in which the

projects are carried out;

Request: In light of the above passages, I would like to request the following information.

1 In terms of proposed liability coverage associated with this pipeline reversal, what is

the general scope of the coverage in terms of environmental liability protection? What

assets are being protected?

2 Is insurance for this proposal capped, if so, at what rate? This question relates to the

CEA where it states the act's purpose is “to ensure that projects are considered in a

careful and precautionary manner before federal authorities take action in connection

with them, in order to ensure that such projects do not cause significant adverse

environmental effects”. If the insurance from Enbridge is capped it would be reasonable

to define that limit now so the government can reasonably consider how much funding

would be required should an incident exceed that limit. A swift response time is needed

and we shouldn't waste time looking for additional funding in order to address a crisis

situation. The more data the Government has about the insurance coverage, the more they

can allocate funding to mitigate risks in a timely manner.

3 Using the Terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act “environmental

effect” means, in respect of a project, health and social-economic conditions, physical

and cultural heritage, and any change to the project that may be caused by the

environment. In light of this passage, does current or projected liability coverage for this

pipeline have regard to compensate farmers, food producers and related industries and

municipalities should a spill adversely impact wells, aquifers and/or farmlands? If so

what is the worth of the current value given towards protecting these sectors that rely

upon these environmental features? Again this information is needed to allow the

government the chance to see if the value given reflects actual current data. If not,

perhaps we need to reassess the risks to protect these vital environmentally based

economic systems.

4 The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) is now doubling flood zones to

address climate change risks. Both the GRCA and the Canadian Water Quality Network

have stated we are going to see more incidents of high precipitation in fewer events

which will bring about more flood/drought scenarios. Is it possible that we can secure a

review of Line 9 to check if structural risks exist in light of this new information? I am

concerned about the potential erosion issues stressing pipes along the route, particularly

in proximity to tributaries, wetlands and primary recharge areas.

5 Will the application for line reversal have regard to current consolidated versions of

the following legislation: Clean Water Act 2006, Ontario Water Resources Act and the

Environmental Protection Act? I understand the project is focused on a pipe already built

however, the direction of the flow the pressure rates and density of materials being

transported is changing and the NEB process validates the fact that ecological concerns

still exist to warrant a review on this matter. I want to make sure that the water policies

OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2011-01 01/Hearing Order: OH-5-2011

Enbridge Response to Louise Lanteigne IR No. 1

Page 3 of 4

are not grandfathered because hydrogeological data has advanced a great deal since the

time this pipe was first approved. Walkerton demonstrated the true costs associated with

undermining risk. We can't afford to do that with a pipeline that travels over top primary

recharge areas, aquifers and tributaries that all drain into the Great Lakes.

6 The CEAA promotes cooperation and coordinated action between federal and

provincial governments with respect to EA processes and it promotes communications

between responsible authorities while ensuring that projects do not cause significant

adverse environmental effects outside the jurisdiction in which the projects are carried

out. In light of this information, has any reasonable attempt been made to engage the

International Joint Committee into the discussions regarding this proposal? The Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement recognizes the need for both Canada and the US to

cooperate to manage these waters wisely and to protect them for the benefit of today's

citizens and future generations. The IJC's jurisdiction includes all watersheds and

tributaries heading to the Great Lakes Basin. Have they been informed of this project? If

not, please explain in writing.

7 It is my understanding that Enbridge uses modelling tools to predict corrosion growth

rates along pipelines but how does this system address variables such as road salt runoff,

acid rain and incidents of hail that could scratch off the protective corrosion barriers?

8 The pipeline crosses over top the Waterloo and Paris Galt Moraines. If there is a leak

of benzene into the aquifers system how would this issue be addressed? Many areas of

these moraines have deep aquifer connectivity. What is the proposed strategy to re-

mediate?

9 In a worst case scenario, how much water could be affected and how big the plume of

benzene?

Response 1-3 Enbridge maintains insurance that responds to Enbridge’s legal liability for property

damage arising from its operations, including cleanup and remediation associated with

environmental damage resulting from a sudden and accidental release of pollutants.

Enbridge maintains insurance coverage and limits that are consistent with industry best

practices and that are adequate and appropriate. Continuous assessment of risk exposures

from operational activities, potential loss scenarios and availability of coverage in the

marketplace assist in determining insurance limits.

4 Refer to Enbridge Response to OME IR No. 1.3d).

The Enbridge Integrity Management System is complemented by damage prevention

activities and right of way monitoring programs. Relevant activities include:

aerial patrols approximately every 2 weeks;

underwater survey of water body crossings; and

depth of cover surveys.

Enbridge completed a river bottom survey in 2007. Such surveys are generally conducted

OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2011-01 01/Hearing Order: OH-5-2011

Enbridge Response to Louise Lanteigne IR No. 1

Page 4 of 4

at 5-year intervals; with one planned for 2012.

Enbridge also has a public awareness program with landowners whose land the right of

way passes through, which encourages open communication. This can also be a source of

reporting of surface changes on the right of way.

5 Enbridge will comply with the requirements of all applicable laws and regulations.

6 Please see Section 5.4 of the ESEIA. In-water works are not required for the Project,

as construction will be localized to the existing fenced-in compounds and there will be no

changes to the existing right of way. As a result, The International Joint Committee was

not contacted or informed of the Project.

7 The coated pipeline is buried and therefore is protected from hail damage. All

coating types applied to buried pipelines in North America are resistant to acid rain and

the chemicals used for road de-icing.

Refer to the Enbridge Response to Lanteigne IR No. 4.

8 A leak from the pipeline of benzene alone is highly unlikely, as it is just one of the

many hydrocarbon constituents that can make up crude oil. If a leak were to occur,

Enbridge would immediately implement its emergency response measures in order to

minimize impacts to human health and the environment.

Enbridge would work with appropriate regulatory agencies and stakeholders to develop a

remedial action plan specific to the circumstances of the incident. The specific remedial

measures, which may include but not be limited to in-situ bioremediation, chemical

oxidation, or natural attenuation, would depend on many site-specific factors including

the crude type, volume released, soil type and depth to bedrock, degree of bedrock

fracturing, depth to groundwater, and aquifer characteristics.

9 The size of any plume would be dependent on many site and incident-specific

variables which include, among other things, the concentrations of benzene in the crude

at the time of the release, the volume spilled, the duration and nature of the event, as well

as the nature and characteristics of the soils, geology, and groundwater. Working in

conjunction with appropriate regulatory agencies and other stakeholders, Enbridge’s

emergency response priorities would be to quickly contain and recover any released

product, and to minimize the overall impacts to human health and the environment.