204 1 RP-1999-0047 2 3 THE ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD 4 5 IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, 6 S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B; and in particular, sections 7 38(1), 39(2), 40(1), 90(1), 127(1)(e), and 127(2) 8 thereof, 9 AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Union Gas Limited 10 for a regulation designating the area known as the 11 Mandaumin Pool, in the Townships of Enniskillen, 12 Plympton, and the City of Sarnia, in the County of 13 Lambton, as a gas storage area; 14 AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Union Gas Limited 15 for a regulation designating the area known as the 16 Bluewater Pool, in the Townships of Moore and the City 17 of Sarnia, in the County of Lambton, as a gas storage 18 area; 19 AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Union Gas Limited 20 for a regulation designating the area known as the Oil 21 City Pool, in the Township of Enniskillen, in the County 22 of Lambton, as a gas storage area; 23 AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Union Gas Limited 24 for authority to inject gas into, store gas in and 25 remove gas from the areas designated as the Mandaumin, 26 Bluewater and Oil City Pools, and to enter into and upon 27 the lands in the said areas and use the said lands for 28 such purposes; 205 1 AND IN THE MATTER of an Application by Union Gas Limited 2 to the Ministry of Natural Resources for licences to 3 drill wells in the said areas; 4 AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Union Gas Limited 5 granting leave to construct natural gas pipelines in the 6 Townships of Enniskillen, Plympton, Moore, 7 Dawn-Euphemia, and the City of Sarnia, all in the 8 Country of Lambton; 9 AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Union Gas Limited 10 for approval of the parties to, the period of, and the 11 storage that is the subject of proposed storage 12 contracts. 13 14 15 16 17 Hearing held at: 18 2300 Yonge Street, 25th Floor, Hearing Room No. 1, 19 Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, December 21, 1999, 20 commencing at 0900 21 22 23 24 25 26 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 27 28 VOLUME 3 206 1 APPEARANCES 2 CHRIS MACKIE/ Case Manager 3 WILFRED TEPER/ Board Technical Staff 4 BOB TREVAIL/ Board Technical Staff 5 ZORA CRNOJACKI Board Technical Staff 6 7 APPLICANT 8 GLENN LESLIE/ Union Gas Limited 9 JO-ANN PATTERSON/ 10 KAREN HOCKIN 11 12 INTERVENORS 13 PAUL VOGEL/ Lambton County 14 ROBERT LIDDLE/ Storage Association 15 DOUGLAS NAPIER/ 16 ROBYN MARTTELA 17 JOE GORMAN/ CANENERCO 18 ROBIN INWOOD 19 BARBARA BODNER Enbridge Consumers Gas 20 BARRY CARD Township of Dawn-Euphemia 21 STAN KLAPAK on his own behalf 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 207 1 Toronto, Ontario 2 --- Upon resuming on Monday, December 21, 1999 at 0900 3 MR. MACKIE: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen, and welcome to day three of the Technical 5 Conference. 6 I overlooked ordering juice and cookies this 7 morning, so we will try to keep our strength up and get 8 through this as reasonably quickly as we can. 9 Ms Crnojacki will be leading the questions and 10 I may have a few follow-up questions. 11 MS CRNOJACKI: Good morning. Can you hear me 12 well? Thank you. 13 I will start with a few questions that address 14 Mandaumin Pool Pipeline, Union's preferred route, and 15 specifically deviations of the route that cause crossing 16 of Mandaumin Road. 17 My first question is, referring to the 18 prefiled evidence, Tab 2, page 412, Figure 4-2, which is 19 entitled "Preferred Pipeline Route". 20 MR. WACHSMUTH: I'm sorry, are you in the -- 21 MS CRNOJACKI: Prefiled. Prefiled evidence 22 Tab 2. That is the IR for Mandaumin/Bluewater Pipeline. 23 Page 412, Figure 4-2, "Preferred Pipeline Route". 24 Can you please explain the rationale for the 25 two deviations in the preferred route that were required 26 to Mandaumin Road crossing? In particular, the first 27 shift which is south of La Salle Line, and then second 28 shift just north of Shiloh Line. 208 1 MR. WACHSMUTH: Okay. As the pipeline -- I 2 will move from north to south. 3 So the La Salle Line shift to the west side of 4 Mandaumin Road is a result of a very deep drainage ditch 5 that begins just slightly north of La Salle Line and 6 begins to deepen. By the time it gets to La Salle line 7 it is quite deep. It is in the neighbourhood of 10 to 8 12 feet deep. It's a municipal drain. 9 As well, at La Salle Line on the east side of 10 Mandaumin Road a water pipeline starts and that travels 11 to the south. 12 So the water pipeline sits between the 13 shoulder of the road and the ditch, which is a very 14 narrow spot. So there really isn't enough room to get 15 the pipeline in the road allowance beyond that point. 16 Private property -- the ditch itself exists on 17 private property. About halfway down the bank of the 18 ditch on the roadside private property starts so we 19 would have to get easement on agricultural lands. So we 20 shifted to the other side of the road in that area. So 21 that is the reason for the first shift. 22 MS CRNOJACKI: May I just interject -- 23 MR. WACHSMUTH: Certainly. 24 MS CRNOJACKI: -- before you start explaining 25 the second shift from the Mandaumin that crosses the 26 road? 27 Are you going to obtain the private easement 28 to facilitate that shift of the pipeline? 209 1 MR. PAYNE: No, we don't require a private 2 easement to move -- 3 MS CRNOJACKI: It's not required. Thank you. 4 MR. PAYNE: It will all be in road allowance 5 there. 6 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you. 7 MR. PAYNE: As we come down between Rokeby and 8 Shiloh, the shift there is to get around a church that 9 sits on the west side of the road. The church, an older 10 church has been built adjacent to the road. When it was 11 built it was probably set back fairly far from what 12 would have been a gravel road at that point. Now that 13 Mandaumin Road is a little bit wider and paved, the 14 church is right up tight to the road. 15 As well, there is a graveyard of some age 16 directly beside the church, so the shift is to move to 17 the other side of the road and avoid that, otherwise we 18 would have to go behind the church. 19 As we come across the road we will go onto 20 easement in that area. Right now it is 21 non-agricultural, it is just some grown-up old field. 22 No significant trees, just some grassy area there. We 23 will come along Shiloh Line and then jump back onto the 24 road allowance on the west side of the road once we get 25 past that problem. 26 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you. That is reasonable. 27 For justification in my mind, would you know 28 if the cemetery is in use? 210 1 MR. PAYNE: Yes, it is. 2 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you. 3 I will now ask the second question, which also 4 refers to the prefiled evidence, Tab 2, page 410, that 5 section entitled "Preferred Route and Route Refinement". 6 MR. PAYNE: Yes. 7 MS CRNOJACKI: I'm quoting: 8 "A short private easement may be 9 necessary across from the church and 10 cemetery." 11 MR. PAYNE: Yes. 12 MS CRNOJACKI: As you explained, this shift is 13 intended so this pipeline will avoid more direct impact 14 on the church and the cemetery. 15 However, the construction may disrupt usage of 16 these two sensitive culture features. 17 Which construction scheduling measures may 18 Union take to minimize the impact of construction on 19 church and cemetery-related activities? 20 MR. PAYNE: The program for completing the 21 construction would not have work take place on Sundays. 22 So that is certainly a big one. 23 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes. 24 MR. PAYNE: As well, the cemetery can be 25 active throughout the week in the event that this is to 26 occur. We are in contact with the people along the 27 road, including at the church, and we can schedule 28 accordingly. If there was going to be some ceremonies 211 1 at the cemetery, an interment, we can move out of the 2 way and allow that to happen without construction 3 going on. 4 We have done that in the past several times 5 and don't have a problem with that at all. It's just a 6 good practice. 7 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you very much. 8 The next question deals with traffic 9 disruption during construction and it refers to all 10 construction activities of this proposed project. 11 Construction of pipeline road crossings, as 12 well as other construction activities within the road 13 allowances, will likely cause some traffic disruption 14 along the local roads in the study area. Can you 15 elaborate on measures that Union will implement to 16 mitigate traffic disruption along the roads for all 17 proposed facilities within the Century Pools Phase II? 18 --- Pause 19 MR. PAYNE: There are a number of methods that 20 we will use to help mitigate the problems with the 21 traffic. 22 There is a set of guidelines that are put out 23 by the Ministry of Transportation that our contractors 24 have to be cognizant of and those guidelines include 25 requirements for flagmen on-site if a given amount of 26 work is going on; rotating lights on top of vehicles; 27 signage appropriate distance back from the construction 28 crew that is working adjacent to the road; cones beside 212 1 any areas where construction is active; and 2 communications with the municipality that we are working 3 in a given area of the road. 4 In the event that we would have to close a 5 road, the rule is you post a sign to the public that a 6 road would be closed on a given date for a construction 7 program coming up and that would be posted ahead of 8 time, then a road closed sign would be posted the day 9 of, and then the road opened as soon as possible. 10 All of that has to be made aware, as well, to 11 any emergency services that might happen in that area as 12 well, ambulances or fire departments, and we would try 13 to communicate that through the roads people, the 14 municipal roads people, and if they require us to call 15 directly to whatever emergency service that would be. 16 That area is primarily a little bit outside my 17 bailiwick, it is more the engineering staff who handles 18 that sort of thing, but just my experience with the 19 construction program indicates that -- 20 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you. That is a very 21 satisfactory answer and I certainly hope this program is 22 implemented. 23 Thank you. 24 The next question is with respect to Union's 25 response to Staff Interrogatory No. 108. In that 26 response let's look at the map which is Attachment 27 Page 2 of 2. 28 --- Pause 213 1 MS CRNOJACKI: This map is entitled "Existing 2 Conditions and Alternatives By Planned Routes". 3 Let me first say that the Board staff found 4 this map very useful in terms of information and detail 5 needed for a comparative evaluation of alternatives. We 6 would like to see such maps included as prefiled 7 evidence with a future environmental report submitted to 8 the Board rather than in a response to interrogatory 9 because it is really very informative and helpful. 10 The next few questions will be with reference 11 to this map. 12 Please note the legend of the map. First, I 13 would like to indicate that the significant natural 14 areas could have been described more accurately based on 15 the available information from the Natural Heritage 16 Information Centre, NHIC. According to the NHIC, the 17 significant natural areas within the study area are 18 designated as follows. 19 We have three live science sites which are 20 Bear Creek Woodlot No. 3; Vulture Woods; and Bear Creek 21 Woodlot No. 2. I realize these are not all directly 22 impacted by the route; they are rather within the study 23 area. However, it would be useful to have those 24 particular designations in the legend of the map as well 25 as in the analogies and evaluation of the route. 26 Within the study area we also have one live 27 science ANSI, which stands for area of natural and 28 scientific interest. This is Black Creek Valley. Black 214 1 Creek Valley is a live science ANSI of regional 2 importance. That is how it is designated by the 3 Ministry of Natural Resources. I would just like to 4 note that the prefiled evidence or the response to 5 interrogatories does not consider these designations. 6 Having this background information in mind, 7 can you please indicate the data sources which are used 8 to map, analyze and evaluate significant natural areas 9 as shown on this map that Union submitted in response to 10 Staff Interrogatory 108? 11 --- Pause 12 MR. PAYNE: The natural heritage NHIC 13 information is available in what is known as the Gore & 14 Storrie report page 3.3 and 3.4. There are descriptions 15 within there of the natural areas available on the map. 16 The depiction on the map is really an enlarged version 17 of what the map is on 3.5. It gives a better scale to 18 view. 19 I guess if I could have you repeat the last 20 part of your question I might be able to then help you 21 out with that information. 22 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes. Of course. 23 With this question I was implying, and I would 24 like explicitly to say now that, yes, we are aware that 25 the NHIC information was used and that this map may 26 represent a somewhat generalized presentation of the 27 features potentially impacted within the study area. 28 However, just for the sake of using the most available 215 1 information, I would just like to confirm with you that 2 this will be more useful and more complete and 3 comprehensive if we had the right and accurate 4 designations for all the natural areas as designated by 5 the most recent records. That's all. Thank you. 6 MR. PAYNE: Yes. I can assure you that that 7 information was utilized in the route selection. 8 MS CRNOJACKI: Okay. 9 MR. PAYNE: And also to aid in mitigation 10 along these areas, we were looking at the use of the 11 road allowance through these natural areas. As you can 12 see, Bear Creek, Woodlot No. 2 is adjacent to the road 13 allowance at both alternate route locations, so it is 14 probably the closest one. 15 The road allowance on both sides, on Mandaumin 16 Road and on Fairweather Road, is clear of vegetation in 17 the area that we would be utilizing. It is previously 18 disturbed with ditched out sides of the road, you know, 19 on both sides. Vegetation is cut back and it is really 20 a previously disturbed area used as the transportation 21 corridor. So in utilizing probably the best mitigation 22 available there is the use of the road allowance. That 23 is what we were looking at. 24 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes. Looking at the prefiled 25 evidence and Union's responses to all the 26 interrogatories, we are aware that no direct impact on 27 these sensitive woodlots would occur, so thank you for 28 your answer. 216 1 MR. WACHSMUTH: Did your question relate to 2 how the consultants pick up this information? 3 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes. 4 MR. WACHSMUTH: I'm not sure whether that was 5 part of the question as well. 6 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes, it was a part of the 7 question. 8 MR. WACHSMUTH: What we expect our consultants 9 to do, and they have all worked in this area before, 10 both Gore & Storrie and Ecological Services, they do 11 have an extensive library based on other reports that 12 they have prepared both for Union Gas and for other 13 companies, and they used that database to prepare these 14 values maps. 15 They also go back and talk to the Ministry of 16 Natural Resources, they talk to the St. Clair Region 17 Conservation Authority, they go and look at the official 18 plans for the counties and townships, and as well they 19 talk to other groups, things like Lambton Wildlife and 20 other groups like that. So they go to all of these 21 other data sources and I guess really you are right, the 22 map at 3-5 doesn't present it as a scale, but the map 23 when it was blown up is part of our answer to 108. 24 I truly believe that this is the most current 25 and accurate information of the natural values that are 26 in the study area. 27 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you very much. I 28 understand that. Thank you. 217 1 MR. PAYNE: The NHIC information is also 2 available via their Web site and they have accessing 3 capabilities through there as well. 4 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you for your answer. 5 You partly answered the question that I'm 6 about to ask. However, let's just reconfirm. 7 These questions deal with the Bear Creek 8 woodlot and the mitigation of the potential on that 9 Woodlot No. 2 on the map. 10 MR. PAYNE: As we pass by the Bear Creek 11 Woodlot No. 2 on Fairweather Road, the designation of 12 the woodlot, as laid out on the map, is not as clear as 13 what it might be in the field. If I can just -- just 14 bear with me for a moment here to give you a -- 15 --- Pause 16 MR. PAYNE: If you turn back to the 17 Interrogatory Response 4107, Board Staff 18 Interrogatory 107, that is the same scale map. 19 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes, I see that, the same map. 20 MR. PAYNE: Yes. And when you cross compare 21 the Bear Creek Woodlot No. 2 to the woodlot shown in the 22 light green here -- 23 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes, I see. 24 MR. PAYNE: -- there is a fair sized clearing 25 on the west side of the road and that's the side of the 26 road we're utilizing. As well, as I indicated before, 27 we are going to maintain ourselves in the road 28 allowance. There is enough room in the road allowance 218 1 for us not to impact -- not to impact the woodlot. We 2 can utilize the existing cleared area directly adjacent 3 to the road. 4 We are also going to utilize directional 5 drilling at the watercourse crossing as well and move 6 ourselves back from the banks of the watercourse there. 7 There is an existing bridge at the site where we are 8 going to be crossing. 9 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes. My next question actually 10 will ask you if you could please reiterate the 11 mitigation measures that you Union will apply to 12 minimize the impact on the Bear Creek stream crossing by 13 the proposed Mandaumin pipeline? You partially 14 addressed it. If you could just elaborate a little bit 15 on that. 16 MR. PAYNE: What we are looking at for 17 construction, I can explain equally both Bear and Black 18 Creek on this project at one time. What we are looking 19 at for this construction project is because of the 20 timing restrictions around the crossing itself what we 21 have gotten through the Environmental Assessment Report, 22 the in-stream construction window would not allow any 23 other method at this point of crossing the water body, 24 so a directional drill will be utilized to go under 25 these watercourses during the construction of this 26 pipeline. 27 I have had a conversation with the St. Clair 28 Conservation Authority regarding their review of our 219 1 environmental assessment and permeating issues. They 2 see no obstacles to allowing us this method of crossing. 3 We will be moving ahead with that. 4 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you. 5 The next question refers to the same map in 6 Interrogatory 108, page 2 of 2 attachments. It deals 7 with archaeological sites identified along the Mandaumin 8 route which is Union's proposed preferred route. Can 9 you please confirm Union's commitment to undertake Stage 10 II, Heritage Resource Assessment, if needed, in relation 11 to these identified archaeological sites?l 12 MR. PAYNE: Yes, I can reiterate our 13 commitment to the Stage II -- I can confirm our 14 commitment to Stage II archaeological work along the 15 pipeline route. I can give you a little better 16 description of what will happen as well. 17 As the route is physically staked out in the 18 field, the archaeologists will come along and review the 19 roadside and any areas that have not been already 20 disturbed by already ditching or bridge building 21 activities along the road, they will test those areas 22 and this is something that we wait until we've got an 23 exact location in the road allowance for them to check. 24 It helps their information procedures as well. 25 If I could just maybe elaborate on the 26 archaeological spots that are posted along that map. 27 These archaeological sites are well known to Union Gas, 28 as they were found during the construction of the 220 1 existing pipeline that runs along there. So, we have 2 gone along here before and found these sites and 3 categorized them at that point. 4 We probably don't see any sites on the other 5 routes, for the simple reason that nobody has disturbed 6 anything over there. There isn't a pipeline there yet, 7 or there isn't a hydro line, or nobody's done an 8 investigation in there yet. So according to the reports 9 we have seen before on these sites, it's not a 10 significant site. It's a fine spot. We will do the 11 work as we travel along with the construction, or prior 12 to the construction and those reports, when complete, 13 will be filed with the MCZCR. 14 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you very much. 15 Again referring to the same map, please note 16 that Union's proposed preferred route appears to 17 potentially impact more environmentally, culturally and 18 archaeologically sensitive features than the alternative 19 route along Fairweather Road. Could you please give a 20 comprehensive justification for Union's selection of its 21 preferred route over the environmentally preferred route 22 proposed by the consultants? You may also refer in your 23 answer to Table 4.3 in the prefiled evidence attached to 24 page 48 -- tab 2, page 48, Table 4.3 because this table 25 contains a comparison of all alternatives that were 26 considered in the route selection. 27 MR. PAYNE: I think if I could take you to the 28 page beside Table 4.3 of the Gore and Storrie Report, as 221 1 part of Union Gas' normal process we also review the 2 route for non-environmental factors and those would be 3 the engineering aspects, pipeline capacity required, 4 operating concerns and costs. Union evaluated the 5 available alternate route segments that were found to be 6 environmentally acceptable by Gore and Storrie. 7 The results of the review indicates that the 8 environmentally preferred route from the Enniskillen 9 compressor station south to the 156 compression station, 10 or the south end point, was acceptable considering all 11 factors and, therefore, will form part of our pipeline 12 project. 13 However, it was the northern segment between 14 the pools and the Enniskillen compressor station that 15 has a note here. In reviewing the route for 16 environmental and non-environmental factors, Union has 17 determined that the Mandaumin Road is the preferred 18 route. 19 The non-environmental factors considered along 20 the preferred route are really, like I said before, the 21 operational concerns, the costs associated with the 22 project. The Mandaumin Route can be constructed in the 23 existing road allowance, as we have indicated. There is 24 really no additional, vulnerable, threatened, endangered 25 species concerned and if I could elaborate on that. If 26 you turn back to the map in Interrogatory 108, the green 27 dots that appear as rare flora and fauna are actually 28 fish. 222 1 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes, I am aware of that. 2 MR. PAYNE: Yes, in the creek, so either 3 alternative, the fish will move across there. So, it's 4 really not a net gain or loss on either side. 5 As well, the archaeology, as I explained 6 before, those sites were found by Union in previous 7 studies. They don't represent significant finds. We 8 are, of course, in the road allowance where things for 9 the most part have been disturbed. I think the reason 10 we just don't see much in the way of archaeology over on 11 Fairweather Road is because nobody has been there yet. 12 MR. PAYNE: I wonder if I could follow up on a 13 couple of those items you have identified, particularly 14 the operational considerations that you identified which 15 is one of the factors that caused Union to choose 16 Mandaumin Road over the Fairweather Road. 17 What are the operational conditions that you 18 refer to? 19 MR. WACHSMUTH: I hate to do this to you, 20 Mr. Mackie, but Mr. Marusic would have been the best 21 person to answer that question. If you would like, we 22 may be able to get him to do something to describe that 23 better. 24 MR. MACKIE: Well, maybe; maybe not. It's 25 your response that that was one of the reasons that 26 chose Union -- to choose Mandaumin Road. 27 Are you telling us, then, that there were 28 engineering considerations which go beyond environmental 223 1 considerations and therefore beyond your ability to 2 explain to us as to why this route was selected? 3 --- Pause 4 MR. WACHSMUTH: I believe that Mr. Marusic 5 would be the best person to answer that question. 6 MR. MACKIE: All right. Thank you. 7 If we choose to go down this route at the 8 hearing, could we request that both of you be on a panel 9 together so we can explore all aspects of the route 10 selection criteria? 11 MR. LESLIE: We will take that under 12 advisement. 13 MR. MACKIE: Thank you. 14 MS CRNOJACKI: The next question refers to the 15 same issue of route selection and preferred route. 16 Referring to the response to Staff 17 Interrogatory 109 -- 18 --- Pause 19 MS CRNOJACKI: -- this particular 20 interrogatory asked for elaboration on the differences 21 in the cost between the two routes as one of the 22 justifications of Union's selection of the Mandaumin 23 Road route over the Fairweather route was a less costly 24 alternative, mainly related to the shorter pipeline. 25 As it is noted also in the prefiled evidence, 26 Tab 2, page 4-9. That is the second in the prefiled 27 evidence where Union describes the review of the 28 environmentally preferred route selected by CG&S and 224 1 also give the rationale for the selection of the 2 Mandaumin Road route. 3 One of the reasons, I will just re-emphasize, 4 was the cost. 5 Could you please explain if the cost of impact 6 mitigation that are factored in the comparative cost 7 analysis of Union's preferred route alternative and the 8 alternative along Fairweather Road? Because we see a 9 more -- at least according to the Interrogatory 108 10 attachment map we see more potential impact around 11 Mandaumin Road, and we also understand that in the 12 report and in the responses Union committed to the 13 mitigation of these impacts. 14 The question is now whether the costs of the 15 impact were accounted for into the comparative cost 16 evaluation of the two alternatives? 17 MR. PAYNE: Yes. When the engineers did their 18 cost comparison they were taking into consideration 19 their commitment to the mitigation measures that are 20 laid out in the environmental report. So that cost 21 comparison would have included any additional or 22 comparatively equal mitigation cost that they considered 23 for Mandaumin Road. 24 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you. Do we have that 25 information available in any of the prefiled evidence or 26 interrogatory responses? 27 MR. PAYNE: I guess if you could elaborate on 28 what you were looking for. I think there is some 225 1 costing information available in the prefiled evidence. 2 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes, on environmental 3 mitigational costs. 4 MR. PAYNE: Well, it would be more via the 5 engineering as well. 6 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes. That's correct, okay. 7 MR. PAYNE: I'm not sure what that reference 8 would be. 9 MR. WACHSMUTH: That's not my section of 10 evidence so I'm not exactly sure which information you 11 are looking for. Are you looking for the mitigation 12 costs of the Mandaumin Road versus the Fairweather Road? 13 MS CRNOJACKI: That's correct. 14 MR. WACHSMUTH: I don't believe that actual 15 numbers were done for the table. 16 MS CRNOJACKI: Okay. 17 MR. WACHSMUTH: What would have happened is 18 the engineers when they did their review, as Greg 19 mentioned earlier, when we get alternatives from the 20 consultants we go out and review all of the alternatives 21 before the preferred route is determined. 22 The engineers would have looked at both the 23 Fairweather route, they would have looked at the 24 Mandaumin route. They would be aware of what the 25 mitigation measure that Gore & Storrie was proposing. 26 So they would look up here and say "Here are the 27 watercourse crossings here. Are they the same? Are 28 they less difficult? Are they more difficult?" 226 1 They would look at areas of natural vegetation 2 adjacent. Are they more or the same? 3 They would look at the areas -- the road 4 allowance, what is there, what things do we have to work 5 around. 6 My understanding is that they did not see a 7 great difference between the two routes. The way the 8 watercourses flow, the watercourses would be a little 9 bit bigger on Mandaumin Road, they would be a little bit 10 smaller on Fairweather because you have another 11 kilometre or so downstream. There really were no 12 significant differences. 13 We looked at the archaeology. We are 14 committed to doing an assessment on either road. 15 We went back -- the archaeology that were 16 found were found as a result of Union's Enniskillen 28. 17 The Enniskillen 28 Pipeline was built so they were 18 isolated fine spots. It wasn't that there was an 19 Iroquoian village there that required substantial 20 mitigation, it was just isolated fine spots. We could 21 go up Fairweather Road and find an isolated fine spot 22 there. 23 So we did not see that the mitigation costs 24 between the two routes would be substantially different. 25 That is generally what we find. 26 Lambton County is relatively homogeneous 27 throughout the whole county and when we are building, 28 whether we are on one road or over one concession, 227 1 generally speaking, unless there is something 2 showstopper, for lack of a better word there, the 3 mitigation costs by moving one concession are not going 4 to be substantially different. 5 MR. PAYNE: I think just to add to that, if we 6 look back at 109, the response to Interrogatory 109, I 7 think the last sentence of that response really 8 indicates where the major differences come from, and 9 that is the cost is higher due to length of the route. 10 There is a substantial addition there in the 11 length. We are looking at 4,000 metres. That is where 12 your costs are coming from. 13 MS CRNOJACKI: I understand that from this 14 response as well as from the prefiled evidence. 15 Where I was leading to is to see environmental 16 considerations in the thrust of the decision-making to 17 select the preferred route. 18 However, I would like to emphasize that it 19 seems that most of the potential impact will be 20 mitigated because they really seem to be a short-term 21 impact that are historically mitigated during the 22 construction and monitored after the construction. 23 MR. PAYNE: For Union to make this decision we 24 really have to turn to the consultants and we turned to 25 Gore & Storrie and asked them was this route acceptable. 26 Could we build a pipeline on this route without harm to 27 the environment using the standard mitigation measures 28 that are followed by ourselves? 228 1 They have come back and they have told us that 2 this is an acceptable route and that utilizing our 3 standard construction procedures based on the 4 conclusions of their report will result in significant 5 environmental impact. 6 MR. WACHSMUTH: I guess, just to add a little 7 bit to what was said here, this is a very serious 8 decision whenever Union rejects an environmental 9 consultant's preferred route. In the nine or ten years 10 that I have been with Union Gas, this is only the second 11 time that Union has rejected the environmentally 12 preferred route which a consultant has put forward. 13 But what we felt in this case is that, for the 14 reasons that are outlined on pages 4-9 and 4-10 of the 15 report, when the consultants prepare a preferred route 16 it undergoes a review. The engineering people look at 17 it, the land people look at it, the costs are looked at, 18 the environment is looked at, the operations are looked 19 at. 20 We also make sure that when we talk to the 21 consultants that we are only going forward with 22 environmentally acceptable routes. If the consultants 23 would have come back and said, "No, there is a 24 showstopper on Fairweather Road", Fairweather Road would 25 not have -- I'm sorry -- on Mandaumin Road would not be 26 considered. We only would be looking at environmentally 27 acceptable alternatives. 28 When Union, the team, looked at all of these 229 1 considerations, the decision was made to reject the 2 environmentally preferred route and go forward with an 3 environmentally acceptable route. 4 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you very much. 5 The following will be the background for a few 6 questions that will address sensitive species 7 potentially affected by the proposed Mandaumin Road 8 pipeline according to Union's response to Staff 9 Interrogatory 111. There are four sensitive flora and 10 fauna species in the study area. Specifically, three 11 are warm water fish species and one plant species, 12 according to the NHIC database. 13 On the map that we referred to before, which 14 is an attachment to Interrogatory 108, page 2 of 2, we 15 have there flora and fauna mapped as point data. 16 However, the NHIC database records show these locations 17 and contain these locations as one kilometre by one 18 kilometre blocks. 19 As three of these species are fish species and 20 one is a plant specie, can we get Union's commitment 21 that they would consult the NHIC records and obtain 22 boundaries of these one square kilometre blocks as for 23 the occurrence of these four vulnerable species which 24 are potentially affected by the proposed Mandaumin 25 pipeline if you think that it is relevant? 26 --- Pause 27 MR. PAYNE: Yes. Union -- we have been in 28 touch with the Ministry of Natural Resources ecologist 230 1 working out of the Chatham office. We certainly are 2 aware of what we term short-term VTEs, vulnerable 3 threatened endangered species. The three minnows are 4 well known in the area. They are something that 5 certainly has come up with the Board before. I'm sure 6 Chris has heard them in the past. They are resident in 7 the creeks that exist down there. 8 We are proposing to directional drill the two 9 water bodies in question to minimize the impacts there 10 at the time of the year when the construction program is 11 scheduled. So that will really minimize that. 12 I guess the remaining VTE is known as Virginia 13 Bugleweed -- 14 MS CRNOJACKI: That's correct, yes. 15 MR. PAYNE: -- at Bear Creek and Mandaumin 16 Road. If I can turn you to page 5-8 in the Gore & 17 Storrie report, again the existence of the Bugleweed in 18 that area, it is indicated that it is really not on road 19 allowance; it is within the floodplain in the forested 20 habitat of Bear Creek. 21 In our conversations with Mr. Al Woodluff(ph) 22 at the Ministry of Natural Resources, he has indicated 23 to us that he is really not concerned with the road 24 allowance scenario that is ditched out all the time. 25 It's not habitat for this sort of thing. So we are 26 expecting that, you know, that sort of thing is off the 27 road allowance. 28 However, in directional drilling the creek, we 231 1 are away from the banks of the creek. This is a 2 floodplain species that is inundated by water, so it 3 needs to be inundated by water. We are back away from 4 that area again with the directional drill to move 5 underneath, so he foresees no problems whatsoever with 6 any of these species, and we are -- 7 MS CRNOJACKI: Thank you for clarifying that. 8 Thank you. 9 The next question will address the Ministry of 10 Agriculture letter received by the OPCC chair and I 11 believe by Union as well. That letter is dated 12 December 7, 1999 and is signed by Mr. Scott Oliver. 13 Referring to that letter, which raises some 14 concerns over the potential impact on agriculture land 15 base -- I'm sorry. 16 --- Off record discussion 17 MS CRNOJACKI: Are you aware of that letter? 18 MR. PAYNE: Yes, we are aware of the letter. 19 I guess the issues surrounding that letter -- 20 it is dated of course December 7th from Scott Oliver, 21 however, we did not receive a copy until December 15th. 22 I believe that is the case also with Neil 23 McKay -- 24 MS CRNOJACKI: Yes, that's true. 25 MR. PAYNE: -- I had discussions with him as 26 well. 27 We have looked at the letter. I would like 28 to -- I have not sat down yet with Mr. Egden to review 232 1 the letter and provide a response to it but we will be 2 providing a response to it and we will provide some 3 detailed information in that response to Mr. Oliver. 4 By way of this answer I hope that we have 5 covered off some of your concerns. By way of that 6 letter I think we will cover off Mr. Oliver's concerns. 7 I have talked to him in the past on other 8 projects. I understand his concerns and I have been -- 9 he has been out of the office quite a bit lately and I 10 haven't had time to touch base with him on a personal 11 note on this project. I usually am in touch with him 12 with all our projects once he puts his -- once he is 13 able to get time to review the assessments we do touch 14 base. I just haven't had time to sit down with 15 Mr. Egden yet because of the schedules here to respond 16 to the letter yet. 17 MS CRNOJACKI: Okay. Thank you. 18 However, could you still, just in -- not 19 really maybe with a specific reference to that letter, 20 just address the agriculture considerations that are 21 taken into account or that will be taken into account 22 when locating the permanent access road, because that 23 was one of the concerns raised in the question and also 24 that is the concern that the Board staff would like 25 to address. 26 MR. PAYNE: Certainly. I can talk to this on 27 my discussions with the landowners in the pool and the 28 discussions that have taken place between Mr. Lowe and 233 1 his staff with the landowners in the pool. Really the 2 road networks that you see in our prefiled evidence are 3 the result of a lot of discussions between Mr. Lowe's 4 group and our field group and the landowners. We try 5 and route those roads and the pipelines in that, for 6 that matter, in an area that has really I guess the 7 least amount of harm or is least intrusive to the 8 landowner and still functional for Union Gas. 9 The road patterns -- the pipeline patterns 10 that you see laid out in those drawings and the drawings 11 do appear in the Union Gas covered report in the 12 environmental evidence under maps 2, 3 and 4. They are 13 a result of the discussions with the landowners. They 14 are basically asking where can we install a road that is 15 of least impact to you. 16 Probably the most significant road in this 17 project is the road on the Hardy property to the 18 Bluewater Pool. If I can turn you to the map, it 19 doesn't display all of it in Map 2 in the Union Gas 20 Report, but it does in the large fold-out map that is 21 available in the evidence. I am sorry for my stumbling 22 here, but I don't have that just to turn up in my 23 evidence. 24 However, the point I am getting at here is 25 that was an existing road. It was a road to the 26 existing development that was there. Mr. Hardy uses 27 that road for his farming operations as well. So we are 28 going to utilize that existing road. 234 1 The branch networks off that road are located 2 in a position that allow us to access the wells and 3 minimize the impact to his farming operations. These 4 roads, as indicated the other day if you were at the 5 Technical Conference, will actually be at grade. So if 6 he is driving up to them with a piece of farm equipment 7 he can then drive over top of it without bumping up and 8 down and banging all over the place. 9 So, yes, we certainly are taking in farming 10 practices into account when we are trying to route these 11 things. 12 MR. MACKIE: I think what is interesting with 13 regards to the Hardy property, however, is that the road 14 network, as you have described it, and which we can see 15 displayed on the fold-out map which is cross-section 4, 16 schedule 5, indicates that the alignment of the 17 permanent road system is different from that of the 18 gathering line system that Union has proposed. 19 Whereas, in other pools, and I believe as a 20 general statement to the fact that it is Union's 21 practice to, wherever possible, align the gathering 22 lines adjacent to the permanent access road. Maybe you 23 would just like to explain to us why the road alignment 24 or the road system has a different alignment in the 25 Bluewater Pool from the gathering lines. 26 MR. PAYNE: In discussions that we have had 27 with the landowners in the Bluewater and Mandaumin Pool 28 for pipeline routing this issue has certainly come up. 235 1 It's one that we have taken a very hard look at. Mr. 2 Hardy has been involved with all of these discussions 3 and he has certainly been involved with our people out 4 there on the ground. 5 The biggest concerns in this whole area, 6 Churchill and Mandaumin Road I can speak of, are the 7 systematic drainage tiles. The systematic drainage 8 tiles are really at their top end or the very start of 9 the system, the top grade, if you will, and all flowing 10 down toward -- all flowing down toward Churchill Road. 11 The pipeline system was routed in a fashion to 12 try and avoid any impact to the tile drains. Mr. Hardy 13 did have concerns with the tile drains on his farm, the 14 way they would have crossed his tile drainage system to 15 gather up and head out his laneway would have had some 16 impact on his tile drainage system. I think this is a 17 reflection of the concerns that are there. 18 MR. MACKIE: So that the drainage in that case 19 is from south to north? 20 MR. PAYNE: From south to north. 21 MR. MACKIE: And I take it then that the tile 22 drains, generally speaking, parallel that north-south 23 road that you referred to us earlier on the Hardy 24 property and which you identified as an existing road? 25 MR. PAYNE: On the Hardy property I am not 26 exactly sure how they are laid out there. I know it was 27 Mr. Hardy's preference to follow a plan like this. I 28 haven't had the direct on-site dealings with him. 236 1 Mr. Hardy actually works for a tile contractor 2 in the area and his preference was that we route out in 3 this manner due to possible impacts on his system. 4 MR. MACKIE: Because the alternative, I take 5 it, if Union had followed its normal practice would have 6 been to have had the gathering system follow that 7 north-south road alignment and, therefore, emerge on 8 Churchill Road and proceed east along Churchill Road to 9 tie into the transmission line travelling south down 10 Mandaumin Road to the proposed measurement and control 11 station? 12 MR. PAYNE: Yes. Yes, that would have been 13 one alternative. However, anything moving along 14 Churchill Road, up in that location you can see the 15 drain in blue mapped out on this map. 16 MR. MACKIE: Yes. 17 MR. PAYNE: That is the location where all 18 this tile drainage runs to, so it crosses over Churchill 19 Road as well. It crosses under Churchill Road, so there 20 was definitely that concern as well. 21 MR. MACKIE: But would that have been a 22 problem for a gathering line or a transmission line 23 running along Churchill Road and, presumably, either 24 crossing over or directionally bored under that main 25 drainage ditch? 26 MR. PAYNE: Well, the actual crossing the 27 drainage ditch would not form a significant problem for 28 Union. The concern was raised though by the landowners 237 1 that as we went along Churchill Line that their tiles 2 actually cross under Churchill Road as we go along there 3 in a few locations, their header tiles. To get to that 4 drain they have got to cross under Churchill and head 5 toward that drain as it crosses through the Vokes' 6 property there. 7 Again, the mitigation program we have for tile 8 drainage is there, but there certainly was a lot of 9 concern with the landowners and they echoed that very 10 strong to us. 11 MR. MACKIE: Sure, and I appreciate the 12 discussion, Mr. Payne, if it's the landowner's concern 13 which is paramount in these circumstances and they know 14 their drainage system better than anybody else. If they 15 are satisfied with this route alignment, that salsifies 16 our curiosity as to why the gathering line system is a 17 line quite differently from the access route. Thank 18 you. 19 MR. PAYNE: It's definitely just a pure 20 reflection of their requests of us. 21 MR. MACKIE: That's fine. 22 MR. WACHSMUTH: The other thing, Mr. Mackie, 23 is the fact that there was the existing road that went 24 back to I believe it was BTS 5-3-2. 25 MR. MACKIE: Yes. 26 MR. WACHSMUTH: So when we had an existing 27 road in place we try to take advantage of that, rather 28 than creating another road that would have come in from 238 1 Mandaumin Road into there. 2 MR. MACKIE: Yes. My concern was not related 3 to the road alignment because it was identified earlier 4 that that was an existing road, but rather the gathering 5 alignment which is not following the access road. Thank 6 you. 7 MS CRNOJACKI: I move on the last set of 8 issues that are addressed and it's tree removal and 9 replanting commitment, particularly Union's intentions 10 to comply with Lambton County's Tree Cutting By-law. 11 I am aware that there is an ongoing 12 communication between the Lambton County Planning 13 Department and Union. However, if you could elaborate 14 and describe in more detail how Union will comply with 15 the Tree Cutting By-law and particularly with reference 16 to the letter to the OPCC Chair from the Lambton County 17 Planning and Development Department. That letter is 18 dated November 25th this year. 19 Please confirm that the following request will 20 be implemented by Union as stated in the letter. 21 I am quoting: 22 "Tree replanting will be required for all 23 areas where trees are cut. Replanting 24 will be on the basis of two acres 25 replanted for each acre cut, including 26 tree rows and specimen trees. Newly 27 planted trees will be maintained in a 28 manner that will enable those trees to 239 1 eventually evolve into a mature woodlot 2 which will have a positive environmental 3 impact. Union will consult with 4 landowners, the St. Clair Region 5 Conservation Authority, the 6 municipalities and the County of Lambton 7 to determine where replanting should 8 occur. If possible, replanting should be 9 done in the immediate area of the trees 10 being removed in an effort to replace the 11 environmental losses at that location." 12 It is highlighted by myself. In no case 13 should trees be planted outside the affected 14 municipality. Also, according to the same letter, could 15 you state Union's commitment that the restoration 16 program and the free to grow status of trees will be 17 ensured? 18 Thank you. 19 --- Pause 20 MR. WACHSMUTH: Generally we can accept that 21 there are some things in it that Union does have 22 problems with. I guess if you go to Interrogatory 118 23 you can see our response to that letter from 24 Mr. Posliff. You also may want to look at 117, which 25 was a letter which was sent to the lawyer for Lambton 26 County. 27 To let you know what has really happened since 28 the Century Phase I hearing, after that hearing there 240 1 were some conditions relating to trees in the decision 2 for the project. After that, Ms Jackson, our solicitor, 3 Mr. McNally and myself, me with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Van Horne, 4 the lawyer, and the engineer, I believe Mr. Katybato in 5 the County. 6 At that meeting we agreed to do a number of 7 things, and those things are outlined in the attachment 8 to Interrogatory 117. 9 What we did was, we believed that by following 10 things -- while we are not applying to the county for a 11 tree-cutting by-law or tree-cutting permit -- that by 12 doing those things we believed that we meet the intent 13 of the tree-cutting by-law. 14 Specifically, when we look at the letter that 15 was sent to Mr. Posliff, there are a couple of things in 16 there which really don't follow Union's tree replacement 17 policy. 18 When Union's tree replacement policy relates 19 to woodlots, it does not relate to row trees or specimen 20 trees. Union's policy for row trees and specimen trees 21 is to replace on a one-for-one. 22 What it is is if we are going through a 23 hedgerow we would be cutting through a single row of 24 trees so we would be putting back trees to replace that 25 row of trees. There really isn't room for a two-for-one 26 in that situation because we are just replacing the 27 hedgerow that was originally there. 28 Also, dealing with specimen trees, specimen 241 1 trees -- and there is a definition of a specimen tree in 2 one of the interrogatories, it is a single tree. So in 3 those situations where it is necessary to cut a specimen 4 tree -- and we don't believe that we will have to do one 5 on this project -- specimen trees are replaced on a 6 one-for-one basis as well. 7 Newly planted trees maintain -- the next one, 8 evolve into a mature woodlot. If we were planting a 9 specimen tree as a single tree, I'm not sure that it 10 could evolve into a mature woodlot. 11 The same, I guess depending upon what your 12 definition is, if a hedgerow could ever be considered a 13 mature woodlot. I'm not sure if by definition that 14 could be a mature woodlot. So I'm not sure for specimen 15 trees and hedgerows whether the fact to evolve into a 16 mature woodlot or not would ever take place. Again, our 17 policy is one-for-one for those two. 18 The other part of it is if Union consults with 19 the landowners. We certainly do. The landowners, as 20 part of Union's policy, have first rights to the trees. 21 In my eight or nine years dealing with the tree 22 replacement program, over 90 per cent of the landowners 23 want their trees, and they want the trees either on the 24 farm where the pipeline is or in another farm that is in 25 Lambton County or in the immediate area. All of the 26 trees that we plant -- that we cut in Lambton County 27 have gone back into Lambton County. 28 So your last remark there, we certainly have 242 1 no problem dealing with that. But we deal with the 2 landowner first. 3 What it is, is then we go to the conservation 4 authority. The conservation authority is the contractor 5 that we use to obtain plant and maintain the trees. So 6 the conservation authority is involved. 7 What we have committed to do in our letter 8 back at 117 is provide Lambton with notification of 9 trees that are cut, showing them maps and again letting 10 them know what happens. And we will meet the 11 free-to-grow requirements that are listed in the 12 county's letter. 13 MR. MACKIE: Thanks for that explanation, 14 Mr. Wachsmuth, of what has occurred between the County 15 and Union pursuant to the Board's decision in terms of 16 the Phase I hearing. 17 However, the problem with the letter of 18 October 1, 1999 is that Ms Jackson invited the County, 19 in her last sentence, to "execute the space provided 20 below". What we have in front of us is an unexecuted 21 copy of this letter. 22 Are we do conclude, then, that the County is 23 not satisfied with the proposals contained in this 24 letter? 25 MR. WACHSMUTH: I'm not sure whether they are 26 not satisfied or whether they just haven't returned it 27 yet. When this interrogatory was filed it had not been 28 returned and I believe that Ms Jackson was going to 243 1 contact Mr. Van Horne to find out if there were any 2 issues. 3 MR. MACKIE: This letter is dated October 1 4 and we are now approaching Christmas. Would you look 5 into this for us and if indeed a copy of the letter has 6 been executed could you see that this answer is updated 7 as soon as possible, along with the package of material 8 that your counsel is going to provide to parties after 9 this Technical Conference? 10 MR. WACHSMUTH: Yes, we certainly will. 11 MR. MACKIE: Thank you. 12 MS CRNOJACKI: This concludes my questions 13 related to environmental matters. Thank you very much 14 Mr. Wachsmuth and Mr. Payne for your answers. 15 MR. MACKIE: Thank you. 16 --- Pause 17 MR. MACKIE: Gentlemen, I have a few questions 18 which mainly relate to the environmental assessment that 19 Union has prepared. But I just wanted to ask you first 20 of all about Appendix E, which appears as part of the 21 CG&S Environmental Assessment. That appears for Union's 22 Environmental Management Manual. 23 --- Pause 24 MR. MACKIE: When was this environmental 25 health and safety policy statement adopted by Union Gas? 26 --- Pause 27 MR. PAYNE: I believe it is early 1999. I'm 28 sorry for not having an adoption date in there, but it 244 1 is very recent. 2 MR. MACKIE: That's fine. 3 MR. PAYNE: It is very recent. 4 MR. MACKIE: That confirms my response, which 5 was that I don't recollect having seen or reviewed this 6 document previously. I think it was adopted in early 7 1999. The chances are we would not have seen it at the 8 Board before. 9 It probably would not have been part of the 10 smaller applications we dealt with last summer by way of 11 a paper hearing process. Is that correct? 12 MR. WACHSMUTH: This document has been 13 included, I believe, in the Century Phase I EA and I 14 believe Ms Simon asked a question about it at one 15 hearing, although I'm not sure which one. 16 MR. MACKIE: Okay, thank you. So we have seen 17 it before. It was part of the Phase I. 18 MR. PAYNE: It is a fairly recent document. 19 MR. MACKIE: I don't recollect having had a 20 chance to review it before. That is why I raised that. 21 Thank you. 22 Now, gentlemen, what I want to bring to your 23 attention is that you are aware now, I believe, that as 24 a result of the consensus on the issues from Friday that 25 decommissioning and abandonment is one of the topics 26 that is included in the Issues List. That, I note, is 27 an item that is covered in this environmental management 28 manual. 245 1 That is to be found at page 9. Could you turn 2 to that page? It's item 4-12. 3 I'm interested in the second paragraph, which 4 states: 5 "Abandonment plans will be developed 6 after consulting with regulatory 7 authorities, and receipt of approvals 8 where necessary." 9 Which regulatory authorities does Union have 10 in mind? 11 --- Pause 12 MR. WACHSMUTH: I guess what we have tried to 13 do in this is tried to make it relatively general 14 because we are talking about sometime in the future 15 at -- possibly here. 16 I can think of an example where if we were 17 going and taking a pipeline out through a watercourse 18 crossing we would have to have permits from either 19 Natural Resources or the local conservation authority to 20 go in and do the work. I mean, instead of installing 21 the pipeline it could be possibly removing the pipeline. 22 So there are a number of agencies that could. 23 Again, we are talking in the future, so we are 24 not specifically real sure, but if there are approvals 25 necessary, it is our policy to get all of those that are 26 necessary since abandonments in the future, to 27 specifically say, that would be based on the 28 site-specific circumstances of abandoning that 246 1 particular pipeline. 2 MR. MACKIE: Well, I recognize that hopefully 3 we are looking at a long time in the future, possibly 40 4 or 50 years or so. I mean, who knows what circumstances 5 could conspire in a shorter term to cause Union to 6 abandon some of these facilities. 7 But let's just talk about these facilities and 8 try and categorize them a little bit. We have wells, 9 obviously, as part of your infrastructure, we have 10 access roads, we have gathering lines, transmission 11 lines, and the measurement and control stations. Is 12 that a fair, broad categorization of the facilities you 13 are going to construct? 14 MR. WACHSMUTH: Yes. 15 MR. MACKIE: Does Union make a practice of 16 removing pipelines from road allowances upon 17 abandonment, dealing with the pipelines, first of all? 18 MR. WACHSMUTH: I believe it would depend on 19 the site-specific circumstances. I can think of a 20 situation where it has and I can think of a situation 21 where it hasn't. 22 MR. MACKIE: Okay. So it is site-specific 23 determined. 24 Now, that question related to road allowances. 25 Mr. Wachsmuth, what about pipelines on private 26 easements? By a "private easement" I have in mind here 27 easements on agriculture land particularly. 28 MR. WACHSMUTH: Again, I think I could 247 1 probably think of a situation of both. 2 MR. MACKIE: Can you be more specific? Can 3 you give us an example of both when you say you can 4 think of an example of both? 5 MR. WACHSMUTH: I guess this was more maybe of 6 a replacement situation where we have done some 7 replacements on the Trafalgar lines where the old lines 8 were physically removed and a new pipeline put in. 9 MR. MACKIE: That is a fair example. I mean, 10 that is what I'm asking for, an example of where you 11 actually removed the old pipeline either prior to or 12 after installing the new pipeline. 13 MR. WACHSMUTH: That happened on our Trafalgar 14 system out in the Milton area back in I believe 1991, 15 1992. 16 MR. MACKIE: All right. Thank you. 17 Mr. Payne, did you want to add to that? 18 MR. PAYNE: We also have a replacement that we 19 have conducted this past summer on the Sydenham River, 20 and that has come through the Board for approval as 21 well. In that case, there was 12 NPS 12-inch pipelines 22 under the Sydenham River whereas the pipeline coming to 23 the Sydenham River was a 16-inch, and when constructed 24 for some reason they put two 12-inches in the river and 25 then went back to a 16-inch. 26 The theory behind that I guess I can't speak 27 to, but now we have gone in and directionally drilled an 28 NPS 16 under the river and capped and abandoned the two 248 1 12-inch sections under the river so that we -- otherwise 2 it would have been excavation of the river to get those 3 pipelines back out again. So that was one that was 4 performed this summer where the pipeline was abandoned 5 in place. 6 MR. MACKIE: Yes. I recollect the two 12-inch 7 pipelines under the Sydenham River, but I judge from 8 your answer that's an example of where you abandoned the 9 pipeline in situ rather than choosing to remove it. 10 MR. PAYNE: Exactly. 11 MR. MACKIE: And of course it has been kept, 12 the pipeline. 13 But coming back to you initially, 14 Mr. Wachsmuth -- and please add anything, Mr. Payne, 15 that you want -- what are the environmental advantages 16 or disadvantages of removing pipelines from private 17 easement agricultural land? 18 I'm concerned with the issue of agricultural 19 land, and this was an issue which, if you recollect, was 20 added to the issues list by counsel on behalf of a 21 significant group of landowners affected by this 22 project. 23 What are the pros and cons of actually 24 removing an abandoned pipeline? 25 MR. WACHSMUTH: We will be a couple of minutes 26 with this one, Mr. Mackie. 27 MR. MACKIE: That's fine. Thank you. 28 --- Pause 249 1 MR. PAYNE: I think that at Union Gas we 2 interact with one another really as a team and any 3 discussions surrounding this sort of thing, abandonment, 4 would involve a lot of individuals that, you know, I 5 can't speak for at this time, our engineers, our lands 6 people concerning the easements or issues that surround 7 the easements or our engineers on issues that surround 8 the pipeline itself. But speaking in environmental 9 terms, the redisturbance of the agricultural land would 10 be of the greatest concern to me. 11 If the section didn't have to be pulled out of 12 the ground in that we could maintain that pipeline in 13 its existing condition or maintain cathodic protection 14 and that pipeline would essentially be there for really 15 an undetermined number of years -- the pipelines that we 16 see in the ground today, you know, some of those were 17 put in in the fifties and are well maintained, so we can 18 expect that it is going to go on a long time -- my 19 biggest concern there would be to go in and restrip the 20 topsoil, excavate the area, pull that pipeline out. You 21 then have to haul back in presumably subsoil to fill the 22 hole where the pipeline was, if you can understand that, 23 the void, so you would have additional disturbance 24 there. Then, using really standard pipeline 25 construction mitigation measures, you would put the 26 lands back together again, understanding that, you know, 27 there is a disturbance there. 28 In the event that we could abandon that 250 1 pipeline in place and maintain its integrity and that 2 disturbance didn't have to happen, I think that would be 3 a viable alternative from my standpoint. 4 Again, I try and capture that answer and the 5 fact that I really need a team to work with to put 6 together certainly a company-wide approach on something 7 like that, but those would be my concerns in dealing 8 with abandoning pipelines on agricultural soil. 9 MR. MACKIE: That is fine, Mr. Payne, and 10 that's helpful. I can understand your hesitation in 11 speaking without other members of the Union team being 12 involved, but my question was strictly related to the 13 environmental advantages or disadvantages and I judge 14 that you are qualified to speak to that matter. 15 MR. PAYNE: Yes. 16 MR. MACKIE: I understand your reservation 17 with regards to the impact on agricultural soils, 18 particularly after a period of time over which hopefully 19 that soil has regained or re-established its original 20 productivity. 21 So I take it, then, that Union's position, or 22 perhaps in your response to that answer, you feel that 23 with a depth of cover of 1.2 metres over these pipelines 24 that that, generally speaking, upon abandonment is not 25 an imposition or a barrier or a problem to the 26 landowner, a farmer, to continue farming his land. Is 27 that your position? 28 MR. PAYNE: Yes, I would agree with that, that 251 1 if the pipeline was abandoned in position and it wasn't 2 causing him any issues regarding its presence there, the 3 environmental impact would certainly be less than trying 4 to pull it out. There would be impacts associated with 5 removal and abandonment of that pipeline, much the same 6 as a typical construction program. 7 MR. MACKIE: Could you foresee any 8 circumstances under which it would be advantageous for a 9 farmer to have such abandoned pipelines removed and 10 therefore cause them to request removal? 11 --- Pause 12 MR. PAYNE: I think, again speaking purely 13 environment-wise, the situation could arise at some 14 point that the pipeline buried at that depth might 15 impact some potential tile drainage plans. Now, I don't 16 foresee that as a significant issue. The pipeline depth 17 doesn't raise its head as an issue with typical tile 18 drainage plans, and that is part of the reason for its 19 depth in agricultural lands, but I suppose there could 20 be that circumstance that would arise out of it. 21 Again, there may be issues from the 22 landowner's point of view regarding easement or -- 23 whatever that being, and I really can't speak to that. 24 As long as the pipeline was cathodically protected and 25 maintained, though, then I don't see an advantage to 26 pulling it out. 27 MR. MACKIE: The pipeline, I take it, is laid 28 much deeper than the tile drains that you have just made 252 1 reference to? 2 MR. PAYNE: Yes. The tile drains, typically, 3 I think we are talking in sort of a 2-foot and above 4 depth whereas the pipeline is much deeper than that. 5 You can get a little closer to that when you are talking 6 about collection drains or municipal drains, certainly 7 across farm fields, but that municipal drainage system 8 is pretty well laid out. We don't see a lot of activity 9 in that area. I mean, there is not a lot of money being 10 pushed toward the municipalities improving drainage 11 systems because I think that network is pretty well in 12 place at this point. 13 MR. MACKIE: Right. Thank you. 14 Do you know whether Union's easement agreement 15 and the form of that easement agreement that Union 16 entered into with landowners addresses at all the 17 question of the possible eventual removal of the 18 pipeline upon abandonment? I just don't know offhand. 19 MR. WACHSMUTH: Mr. McNally would have to 20 answer that question. 21 MR. MACKIE: A number of these questions cross 22 from the environmental to either land or later on to 23 your engineering people. 24 MR. PAYNE: I'm sorry, I can't answer that one 25 for you. 26 MR. MACKIE: Fine. It's on the record and, 27 presumably, somebody will get that information and when 28 we get to the hearing that information will be 253 1 available. Thank you. 2 MR. WACHSMUTH: If I might add a little bit 3 about the abandonment. One of the things with 4 abandonment, it is a current issue that is in the public 5 domain these days. We have seen it on some of our past, 6 the Don and Enniskillen project it became an issue, on a 7 project that -- other NEB projects, the Millennium 8 Project, the Vector Project it has also become an issue. 9 I believe the NEB has groups that are working 10 on abandonment and one of the things that we are 11 really -- when we get to this issue it's something 12 that's going to happen in the future. It would be nice 13 to say that we know exactly what's going to happen in 30 14 or 50 years from now, but if we go back 30 or 40 years 15 ago and look at the improvements and the way pipeline 16 was constructed back in 1957 versus the way it's 17 constructed in 1997, if we continue to make those 18 improvements we really -- I am sure when that when they 19 put down the first Trafalgar line, wet soil shutdown and 20 topsoil stripping were never envisioned and they are 21 standard practices today. 22 So for us to say what might be standard 23 practices in 30 or 40 years from today it's very 24 difficult for us. We can tell you how we would append 25 in a pipeline today if we were taking it out, but we 26 expect specifically the Century Phase II facilities to 27 be alive and active for 40 years from now. We would use 28 the best technology of the day. If it came about that 254 1 these pipelines had to be abandoned, and I think that 2 that is certainly a commitment that we would make and I 3 think that's the best answer I can give you. 4 MR. MACKIE: That's very helpful, Mr. 5 Wachsmuth, and I appreciate you taking this opportunity 6 of giving the Board your views on this question of 7 abandonment. 8 I do suggest, however, that the matter of 9 abandonment can be viewed as being a little more eminent 10 or present than 40 or 50 years down the road. If Union 11 were indeed to move towards a policy on abandonment and 12 abandonment procedures, particularly upon request of an 13 affected landowner on whose property Union had an 14 easement, I think then that this Board might look to 15 Union to father this practice and this procedure in 16 terms of current pipeline abandonments, rather than 17 waiting for these lines in question or subject to this 18 application to become a fully depreciated and perhaps 19 unusable in 50 years down the road. That's why I think 20 this is a useful discussion. 21 I am thinking of proposing a condition put 22 forward for your consideration in these proceedings 23 along the lines of where a gathering or transmission 24 pipeline is situated on a private easement and has not 25 been used by Union for a period of 12 months or more, or 26 is no longer required to operate either the Oil City, 27 Bluewater or Mandaumin Pools, upon request of the 28 landowner, Union shall move the pipeline and restore the 255 1 land to its previous condition. 2 This is a thought process, Mr. Wachsmuth. 3 This is not yet engraved in stone. Would such a 4 condition be acceptable to Union? 5 MR. PAYNE: At this point I really don't think 6 we can speak to that. I guess we can take it under 7 advisement and deal with it in our team atmosphere that 8 we need to. 9 MR. MACKIE: Sure. Thank you. That's fine. 10 I will move on then to -- 11 MR. WACHSMUTH: Would you like a written 12 response to that question? Is that what you are asking 13 for? 14 MR. MACKIE: No, I was not asking for a 15 written response, but since you suggested that and I am 16 going to ask if we could take a 10-minute break, I will 17 deliberate on that and come back and give you a response 18 to that. Thanks for the suggestion. 19 Can we just break for 10 minutes? 20 --- Recess at 10:34 a.m. 21 --- Upon resuming at 10:44 a.m. 22 MR. MACKIE: If we could continue then. 23 First of all, Mr. Wachsmuth, a couple of 24 preliminary matters before I continue with my questions. 25 The answer is, in response to your suggestion 26 of whether we would like a written reply to that 27 possible condition of approval is, yes, we would. We 28 see some value in that given the concerns that Mr. Payne 256 1 identified with regards to needing inputs from Union's 2 team. We often on these panels don't seem to get all 3 the players together on the same panel and in the same 4 place and that would be helpful. 5 I would ask you also to view that proposal as 6 what we characterize at the Board as a straw man. It's 7 a suggestion that's put forward to bring forth critique 8 and suggestions. As I warned you when I first 9 identified that proposal, it's not yet engraved in 10 stone. 11 We have one other request by way of written 12 material and Zora will address that. 13 MS CRNOJACKI: Concerning the comparison of 14 cost of standard mitigation measures along the 15 Fairweather Road route and Mandaumin Road route, we 16 would like to see the itemized costs either tabulated or 17 in a readable form, so that we could compare the costs 18 of two routes in terms of mitigation of the 19 environmental impact. 20 MR. MACKIE: All right, gentlemen. 21 Then, pushing on with our discussion, we were 22 dealing with abandonment or possible abandonment of the 23 several classes of infrastructure that Union will be 24 constructing in these pools. We have dealt with 25 pipelines, basically both transmission and gathering 26 pipelines. 27 Turning now to abandonment of the wells that 28 Union will be drilling, I have a document in front of me 257 1 that Mr. Pardy brought to my attention on Thursday. 2 It's the operating standards under the Oil, Gas and Salt 3 Resources of Ontario. If I understand these, these are 4 in fact the operating standards applicable under the 5 Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, I believe. 6 In the glossary of terms attached to the 7 standard it addresses abandoned wells or abandoned well 8 and it says: 9 "A well whose use has been permanently 10 discontinued and has been plugged." (As 11 read) 12 For your information -- Mr. Wachsmuth, have 13 you seen this document before? It probably falls beyond 14 normal environmental issues. 15 MR. WACHSMUTH: I don't believe either Mr. 16 Payne or myself have seen that report. 17 MR. MACKIE: That's fine. I am expecting to 18 be told this is a matter I need to take up with Mr. 19 Pardy and indeed I will at the hearing. So that Mr. 20 Pardy will be notified. 21 There is a section or a chapter in the 22 standard that deals with well plugging. I mean, it's 23 addressed, and I understand from that that the matter of 24 well abandonment and plugging or for the matter of well 25 abandonment and plugging the regulatory authority to be 26 consulted would be the Petroleum Resources Centre of 27 MNR. Is that your understanding also or is that not a 28 matter that you can address? 258 1 MR. WACHSMUTH: Mr. Pardy would be the best 2 person to ask that question to. 3 MR. MACKIE: I will. I will. 4 I hope we will see Mr. Pardy at the hearing. 5 Now, Board staff would, in the case of well 6 abandonment within a DSA, and I emphasize within a DSA, 7 that's the only areas over which this Board has any 8 jurisdiction, would be interested in ensuring that to 9 the extent possible the surface area is returned to its 10 original condition, that is upon well abandonment. 11 So would Union be willing to entertain a 12 condition, and I am going to state a second condition 13 and invite you to address this by way of a written 14 response. This is again another straw man condition, 15 which would read: 16 "Should Union decide to abandon any well 17 within either the Oil City, Bluewater or 18 Mandaumin Pool, DSAs, in addition to 19 complying with the procedures for 20 plugging wells established MNR, Union 21 shall consult the landowner and the OEB 22 concerning Union's plans for restoring 23 the surface area of the well site." (As 24 read) 25 Maybe you could take that under consideration, 26 Mr. Wachsmuth, and give us a response to that as another 27 straw condition of approval. 28 Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Wachsmuth, 259 1 because I am going to move onto another area. 2 MR. PAYNE: Okay. Again, I think that the 3 majority of that area would be covered by Mr. Pardy in 4 his requirements. 5 MR. MACKIE: Sure. 6 Can I take you to Union's Environmental 7 Assessment, the red-covered document. I just have a few 8 questions of clarification from the tables at the back 9 of that document. If you turn to page 2 of 4 of Table 10 1, which deals with the well drilling, potential impact 11 and mitigation measures, you were discussing Union's 12 practice with regard to tree removal and under clearing 13 here, Mr. Wachsmuth, there is a statement that: 14 "The harvesting of trees will occur 15 between August 1st and March 31st to 16 minimize the effect on breeding birds." 17 (As read) 18 We have already had information that there has 19 been no tree cutting to date, so I take it from this you 20 are going to complete any tree cutting that may be 21 necessary prior to March 31st. Is that fair? 22 MR. PAYNE: There are two methods or two 23 avenues we could take. The first would be cutting trees 24 prior to March 31st to avoid any nesting bird issues. 25 The second avenue would be to have the area where trees 26 might be cut reviewed by a qualified third-party 27 ornithologist to see if there are actually any nesting 28 birds that might be disturbed by the tree clearing or 260 1 construction program. And if it was cleared by them, 2 then we could go ahead and do it outside of that season. 3 That is really a restriction on when those nests would 4 be active. 5 So, if there was no nests, there was no 6 activity and then we could go ahead. If there was 7 nesting activity post March 31st tree cutting, then we 8 would have to work around that situation at whatever 9 recommendations were put forward by that ornithologist. 10 MR. MACKIE: All right. If we are talking 11 about a woodlot, wouldn't we assume that there would be 12 some, generally speaking, some nesting activity after 13 March 31st? 14 MR. PAYNE: Yes, at some location in that 15 woodlot there may well be nesting activity, depending 16 upon how far away it is or what species it is there may 17 be restrictions placed and they are a perimeter 18 restriction around the nest itself. 19 We did experience a similar thing to this on 20 the pipeline construction program for the Lennox 21 Pipeline, where we had to work around a given area. 22 MR. MACKIE: The reason I raise this is 23 because of the timing of the application and the 24 tentative hearing date that is being scheduled, it is 25 not clear to me that you will necessarily have a Board 26 decision or all the Board approvals that you require 27 prior to March 31st, so that I wanted to explore this 28 with you. 261 1 MR. WACHSMUTH: Our preference would be to cut 2 the trees outside of the nesting period. However, if we 3 do not have approval from the Board, we would go into an 4 alternative method and the alternative method involves 5 the ornithologist, as Mr. Payne talked about. 6 MR. MACKIE: Thanks, Mr. Wachsmuth. Thank 7 you. 8 Would you turn to the top of the next page, 9 page 3 of 4, under Site Restoration Continued and there 10 is reference made under the mitigation measures column 11 to the field supervisor. Who is the field supervisor on 12 a project and what is his or her reporting relationship 13 to the project manager? 14 MR. PAYNE: As this is the well-drilling 15 table, the chain of responsibility would run through the 16 field supervisor would be in this case Mr. Pete Fisher 17 who works out of our Don operations plant and looks 18 after that sort of thing. He would report through to 19 Mr. Pardy on that and then any consultation that had to 20 go on with the environmental planning group would be 21 made either through Mr. Fisher or Mr. Pardy. 22 MR. MACKIE: Would Mr. Fisher in his role as 23 the field supervisor be at the drilling site on a daily 24 basis? 25 MR. PAYNE: Yes, that's my understanding. 26 Actually, every time I always find Peter out there. So, 27 he's there all the time. He's certainly in direct 28 contact with the landowners and they all know him by 262 1 name and there's a good relationship there. 2 MR. MACKIE: Okay. Thanks. 3 Now, there is also reference though to a field 4 supervisor when you move on to Table 2 dealing with 5 pipeline construction. Indeed, in the very first 6 activity, prepipline construction and the mitigation 7 measures under -- to offset potential impacts and do you 8 see the reference there to a field supervisor? 9 MR. PAYNE: Yes. 10 MR. MACKIE: Now, that's another or a 11 different field supervisor? 12 MR. PAYNE: Yes. That would be a different -- 13 MR. MACKIE: Well, let's talk about that field 14 supervisor and again the same question, what is his or 15 her reporting relationship to the project manager? 16 MR. PAYNE: It's often done that there may be 17 Mr. Jeans on site, who you have heard spoken of here the 18 other day. Mr. Jeans is an engineer with the pipeline 19 construction group. His reporting structure is through 20 to Mr. Mallette who is on the panel here as well. 21 There may well be an inspector/supervisor on 22 site too and that person, in conjunction with Mr. Jeans, 23 would again report through Mr. Mallette. 24 I don't know at this time that that person has 25 been chosen, but I believe Mr. McNally was questioned to 26 some extent regarding his construction inspection 27 personnel and he or Mr. Mallette would make that 28 determination. 263 1 MR. MACKIE: The name is not important. I am 2 trying to understand the reporting or the hierarchial 3 nature of the reporting relationship. 4 So we have, as I understand your answer, we 5 have the field supervisor reporting to Mr. Mallette, 6 reporting to Mr. McNally. 7 MR. PAYNE: No. Mr. Mallette and Mr. McNally 8 are at an equal level in this situation. Mr. Mallette 9 would be the final reporting person in this instance. 10 MR. MACKIE: Well, it -- 11 MR. PAYNE: Mr. Jeans would report through to 12 Mr. Mallette. 13 MR. MACKIE: You are aware, I believe, that 14 under the Board's conditions of approval, and I am 15 referring to the generic conditions, as opposed to any 16 specific condition that we might propose for this 17 application, that the Board requires Union to 18 identify -- 19 MR. PAYNE: A project engineer. 20 MR. MACKIE: I am not sure that it's that 21 specific. 22 MR. WACHSMUTH: Traditionally, a person in Mr. 23 Mallette's position has been identified for that role, 24 sir. 25 MR. MACKIE: Just hang on, Mr. Wachsmuth. 26 Just excuse my fumbling around here. I just want to get 27 the condition and put it on the record, so we are all 28 talking about the same condition. Otherwise, there is 264 1 room for confusion here. 2 It's Condition (k) that I am referring to of 3 the conditions that were imposed by the Board for the 4 Phase I application on the leave to construct. 5 Condition (k) read, the first part of it: 6 "Union shall designate one of its 7 employees as project manager, who will be 8 responsible for the fulfilment of 9 undertakings on the construction site and 10 shall provide the name of the project 11 manager to the Board's designated 12 representative." (As read) 13 So that's the condition that I am referring 14 to. 15 It became apparent last summer that Mr. 16 McNally was named as the project manager for each and 17 every one of Union's pipeline construction projects in 18 southern Ontario, even though, and this is my judgment 19 and I am not sure that this is a fact, but I am 20 supposing even though he was not in attendance at each 21 of the projects on a daily basis. Would Mr. McNally 22 have been in attendance on every one of your projects 23 last summer on a daily basis? 24 MR. WACHSMUTH: No, he would not, although he 25 probably was in phone contact with all of the projects. 26 MR. MACKIE: Yes, and that was explained to me 27 because when I had occasion to follow up on any project 28 that I had a specific interest in I was always referred 265 1 back to Mr. McNally. And if he didn't have the 2 information, I mean he got back to me very, very 3 quickly. I am not in any way being critical of that 4 process. 5 But having identified in your mitigation 6 measures that there is indeed an individual on site who 7 is the field supervisor, would Union object to the field 8 supervisor being responsible for the fulfilment of these 9 undertakings as imposed by the Board? 10 MR. PAYNE: I think that's a little outside of 11 our area of expertise again. If we could take that 12 under advisement -- 13 MR. MACKIE: Certainly. 14 MR. PAYNE: -- and put it on the list. 15 MR. MACKIE: I appreciate that. If you could 16 just add that to the list. 17 MR. WACHSMUTH: One of the concerns which I 18 expect you will see on the list is that that person who 19 is on the site day to day may be a contract person who 20 was hired on to just deal with the chief inspector for 21 that particular project. 22 My understanding of the rationale for 23 giving -- for identifying Mr. McNally or Mr. Mallette, 24 who both have the same title, that position, is they are 25 the people who testify here in front of the Board and 26 they are probably the ones that are most aware of the 27 conditions and the undertakings and all of the other 28 requirements which are there to be followed during the 266 1 construction period, whereas a person who only comes in 2 and is actually in the field constructing probably 3 doesn't have all of the history regarding the projects 4 from their inception up through the public meeting, up 5 through the OEB application, through the 6 interrogatories, through the hearings, through the 7 conditions, developing the contract. So I think that by 8 having Mr. McNally or Mr. Mallette as the person 9 responsible, they have a much better idea of the whole 10 broad project as opposed to just the person who is on 11 site as the chief inspector. 12 MR. MACKIE: I take it that Mr. McNally or 13 Mr. Mallette are ultimately responsible for ensuring 14 compliance with these undertakings and conditions. 15 MR. WACHSMUTH: They will probably give us the 16 environmental ones, but certainly the engineering ones. 17 MR. MACKIE: I think that is a very 18 comprehensive and a very fair assessment, Mr. Wachsmuth, 19 and I'm prepared to take that as you have stated it. 20 Unless you feel that a written response could add 21 anything to that, I'm quite satisfied with that 22 response. 23 MR. WACHSMUTH: I don't think the written 24 response would be very different from what I just said. 25 MR. MACKIE: Well, then I'm not requesting the 26 written response because I found that very helpful. If 27 you find there is something else you want to throw at 28 us, well then do so by way of a written response. Thank 267 1 you. 2 Now, coming back to the mitigation measures, I 3 think I seem to have moved on to the pipeline, that is, 4 the Table 2 conditions. I just wanted to clarify my 5 understanding of hydrostatic testing, which you have 6 addressed at page 2 of 4. 7 My recollection is that something called a 8 dewatering permit may be required from MOE to dispose of 9 water following hydrostatic testing. Is that correct? 10 MR. PAYNE: Yes. If we are utilizing more 11 than 50,000 litres of water in a 24-hour period, then 12 the MOE has requested that we would apply to them for a 13 dewatering permit. They are basically a permit to take 14 water, is what it is. There is no actual dewatering 15 permit. It's under the permit to take water process. 16 In the case that we would use municipal water, 17 we would purchase that water. There is no requirement 18 for actually getting a permit to take the water, but 19 then there isn't an actual permit in place to discharge 20 the water. So we have agreed with MOE that we would 21 apply for the permit to take water to cover ourselves 22 off on the dewatering aspect of that hydrostatic testing 23 program. 24 MR. MACKIE: But in this instance you have 25 identified the local conservation authority for the 26 taking of water permit, not MOE. 27 MR. PAYNE: It was the practice up until just 28 recently and I'm going to have to update that on the 268 1 list, but the St. Clair Conservation Authority was in 2 charge of that service for MOE and under the recent 3 latest round of government cutbacks, the St. Clair 4 Conservation Authority has returned that duty to the 5 Ministry of the Environment. It was something that we 6 saw only in southern Ontario, sort of Sarnia over to 7 Chatham area where the conservation authorities had 8 taken over that program because they had a little more 9 information available to them on the water bodies for 10 allowing the permit to take water. So I'll update that 11 for you. 12 MR. MACKIE: Thank you. 13 MR. PAYNE: I apologize for that, but it has 14 been a recent change. 15 MR. MACKIE: Yes. Sure. 16 I understand there are a number of these 17 mitigation measures that we have seen in other 18 applications, so I can understand it is just a question 19 of updating. Thank you. 20 I do need to take you back to Table 1 and 21 page 4 of 4, particularly liquid and solid waste and the 22 disposal of drilling fluids. 23 Can you remind me -- this is an area I find a 24 little confusing -- what is the proper procedure for 25 disposing of drilling fluids? 26 MR. PAYNE: A lot of the information in this 27 area is certainly looked after through Mr. Pardy's 28 group, but the basic issues around disposal of this type 269 1 of waste are classifying and then proper disposal with a 2 third party licensed contractor. I do know for the most 3 part that Union recycles these drilling fluids and has a 4 permit or fulfils all the requirements to store and 5 handle this material and we certainly utilized that to 6 the greatest extent possible. 7 But in the case where some might have to be 8 disposed of, the conditions around that I guess would be 9 best asked of Mr. Pardy, but it would be classified and 10 then properly handled via a third-party contractor or a 11 licensed -- 12 MR. MACKIE: Yes. The reason I ask this is 13 that my recollection is that some drilling fluids may 14 contain toxic substances and therefore their disposal is 15 controlled either through regulations established by MOE 16 and MNR, both of whom seem to have a role to play in the 17 disposal of drilling fluids, and that's why I find it 18 confusing. 19 We will take that up with Mr. Pardy at the 20 hearing if that clarification is required. Thank you. 21 In terms of your general construction, and I'm 22 thinking of the pipelines in particular -- and this may 23 be a construction-related question -- will the 24 contractor have a work yard where all the equipment will 25 be stored at night? I believe that is Union's general 26 practice. 27 MR. PAYNE: Certainly the contractor will have 28 a local yard available to them where certain pieces of 270 1 equipment would be parked on a daily basis. Not all 2 that equipment would be taken back to the yard every 3 night however. It is common practice to have available 4 space in the road allowance or adjacent to the road 5 allowance to store this equipment in a safe manner. 6 I guess the prime concern here would be 7 safety, public safety, and that is certainly in the 8 forefront. The equipment is secured at night so it 9 can't be accessed by people in the surrounding area 10 which definitely is a concern to everybody, and it will 11 be stored in such a manner that it doesn't create a 12 problem on the road as well. 13 MR. MACKIE: All right. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 14 To the best of your knowledge, are any 15 township or country road closings to be required while 16 construction is under way? 17 MR. PAYNE: I know there has been discussions 18 taken place between our engineering group and the county 19 and township peoples. It is probably best directed at 20 that group as to when such a thing would be done and 21 what procedures would be followed. 22 MR. MACKIE: Perhaps they could update us on 23 this matter at the hearing. 24 MR. PAYNE: Yes. 25 MR. MACKIE: I recollect that this was an 26 issue raised by local residents after the Board's 27 hearing into the Phase I application for the Century 28 Pools. 271 1 Now, I have a question here relating to 2 drilling procedures. I will put it on the record and 3 maybe Mr. Pardy can then address that too. The question 4 is: Why is construction, as from this table, generally 5 restricted to daylight hours with the exception of well 6 drilling? Rotary well drilling, as you are aware, is a 7 24-hour operation. 8 I was also going to ask if anyone could answer 9 whether rotary drilling were used, if that is a 24-hour 10 operation. I believe rotary drilling is restricted to 11 daylight hours. Are you aware of that? You are not. 12 MR. PAYNE: We will have to give that one to 13 Mr. Pardy, but the exact reasons behind that I'm sure he 14 will have for you. 15 MR. MACKIE: Thank you. We will explore that 16 with Mr. Pardy. 17 Now, the final table, or the third table deals 18 with the construction related to the measurement and 19 flow control station. This table appears to be very 20 similar to ones that we have seen for construction of 21 compressor stations. Has it been adopted from your 22 compressor station or potential impact and mitigation 23 measure summary? 24 --- Pause 25 MR. PAYNE: Yes, that would be correct. That 26 is where the genesis of this table would have come from. 27 MR. MACKIE: All right. Thank you. 28 Could you look at page 2 of 2, Mr. Payne? The 272 1 first activity: 2 "Site Operation 3 Noise from blowdowns 4 If possible, adjacent landowners will be 5 informed prior to blowdowns." 6 A measurement in a control station does not 7 lend itself to the possibility of blowdowns I believe. 8 This would be unique to a compressor station. Is that 9 correct? 10 MR. WACHSMUTH: My understanding is that 11 during construction that gas may be blown off at the 12 station, and I believe that was discussed last week. It 13 would not be probably during the normal operation, but 14 it may be during construction. 15 MR. MACKIE: I thought the discussion last 16 week related to a compressor station operation, but I 17 might have been mistaken. 18 MR. WACHSMUTH: I believe that there is 19 potential for gas to be blown off during construction at 20 the station. 21 MR. MACKIE: Fair enough, Mr. Wachsmuth. I'm 22 not challenging that, I just wasn't aware of that. 23 MR. WACHSMUTH: The engineers would be the 24 best to answer the question, but it's my understanding 25 that that could happen. 26 MR. MACKIE: I'm sorry, who would be the best 27 to address that question? 28 MR. WACHSMUTH: Mr. Mallette. 273 1 MR. MACKIE: Mr. Mallette, okay. 2 Okay, gentlemen, thank you very much. Those 3 are my questions. Thank you for your patience. 4 Glenn, is there anything that Union needs to 5 address on the record before we excuse the reporter? 6 MR. LESLIE: No, I don't think so, Chris. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. MACKIE: Right. 9 Thank you, witness panel. 10 Thank you, reporter, again, for your 11 attendance this morning. 12 Thank you. 13 --- Whereupon the Technical Conference adjourned at 1117.