The first meeting of the Southwest NB CL Committee was held at Smith’s Motel, Highway 1, beginning at 7:00 p.m. For the initial meeting, Christianne Vachon-Horgan of Revolution Strategies acted as facilitator.
Present for the first meeting were:
- Kathryn Foster
- Peter Fenety
- David Armstrong
- Burton Stewart
- Andrew Sanojca
- Lyman Spear
- Robin McAdam, President, Brunswick Pipeline
- Roger Burton, Manager, Engineering, Brunswick Pipeline
- Susan Harris, Co-Chair for Brunswick Pipeline
- David Peterson, NB Environment and project Compliance Officer
- Robert Crawford, ROW Representative
Regrets were received from Arthur MacKay, Peggy Thompson and Lee Sochasky.
Robin welcomed the committee members and thanked them for their willingness to participate and for their commitment to the community. The objectives of the Committee and public participation as observers at future meetings were discussed. As well, in-camera sessions were highlighted as a potential interruption of “public” portions of meetings. Presentations and information updates will be arranged for and at the request of the Committee.
The draft Terms of Reference (ToR) was reviewed. Only one change was requested by the Committee, for a more detailed description and delineation of the differences between the co-chair and facilitator roles, related to section VI (A.) i & ii.) of the draft. The text will be reworded and reviewed by the committee at the December 5, 2007 meeting.
For clarification, it was agreed that committee members should forward comments and questions from residents to Brunswick Pipeline as they are received rather than waiting for the next meeting. Brunswick Pipeline is accountable for following up, with results to be reported at the next meeting. Committee members are not accountable for the follow-up.
Susan Harris, Community Relations Manger, is the primary contact for committee members; however, other company representatives are also available.
It was agreed that:
- The committee would meet bi-monthly in the St. George area, on the 1 st Wednesday of every other month, 6-8 p.m.
- The times and frequency can be changed with committee agreement as the project moves forward.
- Additional meetings can be called at the discretion of the Committee co-chairs.
To gain an understanding of each SNBCL Committee member’s particular interests and/or concerns with respect to the project, visitors and Brunswick Pipeline representatives reviewed their reasons for joining. This list will also be used to establish a presentations roster for the Committee. Without attributing names to the interests or concerns, the items were:
- environment, rivers and animal habitats
- safety, including ATVs on the right-of-way
- requested information about the pipeline, including environmental assessment, EPP once approved, construction and safety manuals, RoW maps showing environmental constraints, valve stations, etc.
- how information will be provided, about the project and about employment opportunities
- expectations of local firefighters and emergency services
- potential impacts of risks from the Canaport LNG terminal
- difference between liquefied natural gas and natural gas (Cold keeps the gas in liquid state, approx. -170 Celsius.
- safety of the pipeline during construction and operations
- maintenance of the RoW and how sharing RoW with other utilities will reduce the width of the footprint of the pipeline RoW
- temporary work room area identification, usage and remediation
- landowner issues around the RoW
- structure and operations of the pipeline from the Canaport terminal to the interconnection near St. Stephen
- location of shut-off valves
- how the oversight of the line is carried out
- safety of the structures and the RoW
- how construction will be carried out and what equipment will be used
- stream/watercourse impacts
- environmental impact assessment and identified species at risk
- quality assurance during construction
- illegal dumping along the RoW and appropriate removal of items such as white goods, mattresses, etc. (dumping occurs in a variety of areas along the RoW. There are transportation restrictions for clean-up, specifying that what is found in the area of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission and what is found in the area of the Southwest Solid Waste Commission shall go to their respective sites. The general manager of the SWSWC is Don Herrington.)
This topic was discussed, and members were asked to consider offering or nominating another in relation to the responsibilities of the co-chair position. A facilitator will be chosen at the December 5, 2007 meeting.
An overview of the Brunswick Pipeline team, Emera, and partner companies, Spectra Energy, Maritimes & Northeast Pipelines, etc., was given. Having a pipeline in the community brings to Brunswick Pipeline the necessity to be aware of and provide public education, to hold realistic risk discussions, and to put in place regulatory and accountability frameworks. The Committee will be an asset to Brunswick Pipeline, keeping the company in touch with community issues and concerns so that we can tailor our information accordingly. An overview of the current status of the appeal of the Friends of Rockwood Park was also given, as was a commitment from Brunswick Pipeline for the support and information that we can provide to the SJCLC.
ii) NEB roles & responsibilities
Responsibilities and oversight of the National Energy Board, as well as other regulators, were outlined as well. David Peterson noted his role as an environmental technical resource to the committee, in addition to his role as compliance officer for the New Brunswick Department of Environment. Even local emergency response providers have an oversight role.
1. Is there a M&NP committee similar to this on the US side? No there is not, although M&NP works with a long list of stakeholders along the route.
2. Can the power lines act as ignition sources for leaked gas? Unlikely as gas will generally dissipate into the atmosphere. Brunswick will get more specific information from the appropriate technical expert. The magnetic field of power lines requires engineering solutions for the pipeline during construction, but there are many natural gas pipelines located near and sharing RoWs with power lines.
3. How is safety managed at the LNG terminal? The Canaport LNG terminal is a well secured and monitored location. The tanks have a 3-foot cement exterior and a double-walled steel liner inside and a 3-foot cement cap covers the top.
4. Is the LNG delivered to Canaport from Nova Scotia? No, Respol will bring the LNG in on ocean-going takers from Trinidad. Repsol has a number of tankers on retainer for deliveries, and initial estimates are for 60-80 ships per year to deliver fuel. Each storage tank at Canaport holds a 4-5 day supply, and with three tanks, Canaport will have a reserve of 12-15 days’ supply.
5. Can communities along the route tap into the pipeline? Enbridge is the New Brunswick local distributor for natural gas. Brunswick Pipeline’s is an “open access” pipeline, and it has more capacity in Canada than Respol has contracted for in the US pipeline system - thereby ensuring that gas will be available for Canadian customers. Irving may also tap into the pipeline. Enbridge may decide to negotiate with Brunswick Pipeline to tap in if community interest makes such an extension economically viable.
6. Tolls on a pipeline. Brunswick Pipeline connects to the M&NP system at the US border to allow customers buying gas from Repsol to pay only two pipeline tolls (the Brunswick toll and the applicable M&NP toll) regardless of whether they are located in Canada or the US.
Robin provided an overview of the safety protections built into modern pipelines, including the metallurgy, flexibility and toughness of the pipe, cathodic protection, epoxy coatings, pigging of the pipeline and detection capabilities, maintenance and inspections, methods used to keep ATVs off the RoW, presence of mercaptan odorant in the line, inspections during construction, hydrostatic testing of the pipeline prior to being placed in-service, public information and education programs. As well, differences between the properties of methane and propane were discussed, as were the likelihood of explosion vs. a flash fire, and behaviour of pipeline leaks.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 6 p.m., location to be determined.
Download Minutes (pdf)