Emergency planning northern ireland 2014,big changes in the 21st century oncology,how to make a tree out of tomato cage - Easy Way

We’re pleased to welcome Tala Hooban from the Administration on Children and Families to Public Health Matters. Planning for emergencies is important, especially since your family may not be together when disaster hits. Now that I work for an agency focused on child and family safety I’m even more aware of the importance of being prepared to ensure safety and a smooth recovery process. Follow ACF’s Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR) on Facebook and Twitter for preparedness tips all month long.
Comments listed below are posted by individuals not associated with CDC, unless otherwise stated. Yes, keeping first aid is necessary we don’t no what happen when we are working ,in the disaster time we use first aid.
Preparedness is the key to surviving any eventuality that may come our way, whether a natural or manmade disaster. Comment All comments posted become a part of the public domain, and users are responsible for their comments. Emergency Planning Solutions (EPS) is a Northern Ireland based risk management consultancy. A Local Emergency Planning Committee or LEPC, is a voluntary organization which is established in an Emergency Planning District designed by the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC).
Collect, manage, and provide public access to information on hazardous chemicals in our area. Educate the public about the risks from accidental and routine releases of chemicals and work with facilities to minimize the risks.
Clicking any flag icon above calls Google translation service to translate the page to the language you have chosen. An applicant must demonstrate that it is able to build and operate safely, and protect people, the environment, and species living within the project area. Northern Gateway said that, although an oil spill could affect a variety of habitats, the most critical effects would be expected to be to aquatic environments. Risk a€“ what is the chance that a malfunction or accident could happen and, if it did, what would the potential negative effects be?
Prevention a€“ what measures, tools, plans, and processes are in place to prevent malfunctions and accidents from happening?
Response a€“ in the event that a malfunction or accident does happen, what would the response be and how would it help? Financial responsibility a€“ how are people affected by malfunctions or accidents compensated for their losses, and who pays? Under its Terms of Reference and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the Panel's environmental assessment must take into account environmental effects of project malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. This section provides a brief overview of the regulatory framework that would apply to the project and discusses the roles and responsibilities of the various regulatory bodies.
Northern Gateway said that the project would be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the Onshore Pipeline Regulations under the National Energy Board Act. Based on publically available information, the Panel provides the following summary of the National Energy Board's regulatory framework related to emergency prevention, preparedness, and response. The Onshore Pipeline Regulations require companies regulated by the National Energy Board to use management systems to achieve safety, environmental protection, and other regulatory requirements. A pipeline company is required to have a systematic, comprehensive, and proactive risk management approach integrated into its overall management system throughout the lifespan of a pipeline system.
Northern Gateway would be audited and evaluated against the legal requirements identified in the National Energy Board Act and its associated regulations, other relevant legislation and regulations, and any commitments made by Northern Gateway or conditions contained within the applicable project certificates or orders. With respect to emergency management, a company must develop and implement an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program for all aspects of its facilities, including pipelines, loading facilities, tank farms, and operational activities.
The National Energy Board undertakes compliance verification activities and references a number of industry wide standards in addition to the emergency preparedness and response program elements described in the Onshore Pipeline Regulations.
Compliance verification activities are designed to provide feedback to the company, to determine if regulations are being followed, to assess if enforcement is required, and to compile information on the company's performance.
A company must also consider how to prevent and respond to emergency situations resulting from criminal activities.
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Program must include procedures for receiving and disseminating information to first responders, adjacent commercial, industrial, or pipeline operations, product receivers and members of the public who may be involved in responding to an emergency or may be impacted by an actual or threatened act of terrorism or other criminal activity. Parties filed, or referred to, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's 2011 report on transportation of dangerous products which evaluated the National Energy Board's emergency management program.
Transport Canada provided an overview of the regulatory environment pertaining to marine shipping activities in Canada.
Transport Canada said that the federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over navigation and shipping, coastal fisheries, and aids to navigation such as beacons, buoys, and lighthouses.
Marine shipping in Canadian waters is regulated in accordance with the principle that, as long as ships are in compliance with the law, they have the right to navigate within Canadian waters. In addition to national requirements, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and its regulations give effect to many international conventions which are enforced on Canadian vessels and on foreign vessels in Canadian waters. The International Maritime Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations which focuses on the improvement of safety at sea and the prevention of pollution from ships. Transport Canada monitors compliance with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and enforces its requirements.
The International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organization provide the regulatory framework for the Port State Control program.
The purpose of the Pilotage Act is to allow a mariner with extensive knowledge of a local waterway and its ports to board a ship and guide it safely to its destination. There are several regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 that help vessels navigate safely in Canadian waters. Navigability in Canadian waterways is highly influenced by water levels and the bottom condition of shipping channels. Regulations have established vessel traffic services (VTS) zones along Canada's east and west coasts out to the limit of the territorial sea. Vessels approaching the west coast bound for the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat enter the Prince Rupert Traffic Zone. Ships of 300 tons gross tonnage or more (other than fishing vessels) engaged on an international voyage, and domestic ships of 500 tons gross tonnage or more (other than fishing vessels) must be fitted with an Automatic Identification System (AIS). Canada has a National and Regional Places of Refuge Contingency Plan that applies to all situations where a vessel needs assistance and requests a place of refuge within waters under Canadian jurisdiction. In response to questions from the Coastal First Nations, Transport Canada said that there are no pre-designated places of refuge in the Pacific Region. The Canadian Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation Program provides an extensive system of short-range and long-range aids to navigation throughout coastal communities and inland waterways in the Pacific Region.
The Program provides aids to navigation where justified by the volume of traffic and the degree of risk, in accordance with its design methodology and provision directives.
Canadian Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation Program is also responsible for providing detailed information on the operation of, and changes to specific aids. The Canadian Coast Guard said that it is committed to completing a thorough review of the aids to navigation system with regard to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
In response to questions from the Province of British Columbia and the Coalition, Northern Gateway said that the Canadian Hydrographic Service was scheduled to complete its chart update program by 2013. The Safety Management Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 incorporate the requirements of the International Safety Management Code, which provides an international standard for safely managing and operating vessels and for preventing pollution.
Transport Canada said that safety management systems allow vessel owners and operators to have a safety system that prepares them for the realities of day-to-day work and that meets safety management regulatory requirements.
Transport Canada said that the TERMPOL Review Process (Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Transhipment Sites) is a voluntary review process for proponents involved in building and operating a marine terminal system for bulk handling of oil, chemicals, and liquefied gases. Northern Gateway participated in a TERMPOL Review that was conducted concurrently with the Panel's process.
Transport Canada noted that a TERMPOL report is not a regulatory instrument and the findings and recommendations are not binding on any department, agency, group or individual or the proponent. Transport Canada said that it is the lead federal regulatory agency responsible for the National Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime.
Transport Canada said that Canada's oil spill response regime is based on the principle of cascading resources. Transport Canada said that most of Canada's spill response capability is provided by industry response organizations, certified by Transport Canada, that provide response services for their member stakeholders.
The Panel received a letter of comment from the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, currently the only certified response organization on the west coast of Canada. Transport Canada said that the oil spill response regime in Canada is based on the polluter-pay principle. Transport Canada said that other agencies can also be involved in marine spill response and planning.
Environment Canada's main responsibility related to ship-source oil spill response is to support the Canadian Coast Guard by providing advice through the Regional Environmental Emergencies Team. Transport Canada said that, in addition to the requirements for an arrangement with a response organization, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and associated regulations require vessels, such as those proposed for the project, to have a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan. Transport Canada said that the operator of an oil handling facility, such as that proposed by Northern Gateway, must also have an Oil Pollution Prevention Plan and an Oil Pollution Emergency Plan in place.
The Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada said that the federal Interdepartmental Marine Pollution Committee, co-chaired by the Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada, was formed in 2010. In response to questions from Coastal First Nations, the Haisla Nation, Coalition, and the Panel, Transport Canada said that, in response to the recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General's 2010 report, it was developing a Canada-wide process to assess risks of oil spills from ships.
Northern Gateway said that, on a worldwide basis, all data sets show a steady reduction in the number and size of oil spills since the 1970s.
Northern Gateway said that the regulatory environment and the tanker industry are subject to continuous improvement in the areas of vessel construction and operation. In light of these changes and potential future improvements, Northern Gateway said that it is likely that the number of spills will continue to decline in the future. The Haisla Nation said that, although there have been no major spills since the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, there were 111 reported incidents involving tanker traffic in Prince William Sound between 1997 and 2007. Northern Gateway and Transport Canada summarized the marine spills liability and compensation regime in Canada.
Bunkers ConventionCompulsory insurance certified by statesGeneral limits of liability (approx.
Shipowner only liable under Marine Liability ActNo compulsory insuranceGeneral limits of liability (approx.
Transport Canada said that the liability of tankers carrying persistent oils is governed by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992. Transport Canada said that the maximum liability of a ship owner or its insurers in respect of an oil spill from a tanker is approximately $145 million.
Transport Canada said that the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds is an international organization of which Canada has been a member since 1989.
Transport Canada indicated that the first convention is the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992. Transport Canada said that the second convention is the Protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992, which establishes the Supplementary Fund, an optional third tier of compensation under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds system. Transport Canada indicated that the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds cover a range of loss and damage, including reasonable costs for preventive measures to minimize or prevent a spill, cleanup, property damage, environmental damage, quantifiable economic losses, such as in the fisheries or tourism sectors, and post-spill monitoring and studies. In combination with the ship owner's liability, the 1992 Fund, and the Supplementary Fund, the total amount of compensation available for a tanker spill is $1.2 billion for a single incident. Transport Canada said that, in addition to the international funds, Canada has a domestic fund called the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, which is set out in Part 7 of the Marine Liability Act, and which can provide an additional tier of compensation to victims of oil spills.
The Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund covers pollution damages from any type of oil and any type of ship, including mystery spills, if it can be proven that the spill originated from a ship. Transport Canada indicated that, when processing claims for compensation, the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund follows the procedure set out in Part 7 of the Marine Liability Act. Various intervenors, including the Kitsumkalum Indian Band, Coastal First Nations, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, and the Gitxaala First Nation expressed concerns that adequate compensation would not be assured in the event of a marine spill.
The Gitxaala Nation asked Northern Gateway who would be responsible for cleanup costs and compensation payments if costs associated with a spill exceed the amounts available under the various funds. The Gitxaala Nation questioned Northern Gateway on the sources of information that would be used to determine the marine harvests landed by traditional users, for the purpose of calculating compensation. The Gitxaala Nation questioned Northern Gateway on the appropriateness of the cost benefit analysis modelling that the company conducted for costs related to clean up and environmental damages. Coastal First Nations expressed concerns that Northern Gateway had not included in its spill estimate costs passive use values and damage assessment for things such as loss of ecological values, social problems associated with a spill, costs of strained community relationships, losses related to homes, or uncertainties associated with the effects. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union questioned Northern Gateway and the Government of Canada on compensation for commercial fishers.
The National Energy Board Act addresses malfunctions, accidents, and emergency preparedness and response for facilities under National Energy Board jurisdiction. The evidence indicates that there is a comprehensive regulatory regime in place related to pipeline and terminal design, safety, spill prevention, and spill preparedness and response.
Marine shipping navigation, safety, and spill prevention are not under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board.
The evidence indicates that there is a comprehensive regulatory regime in place in Canada related to marine shipping navigation, safety, spill prevention, and spill preparedness and response. Northern Gateway said that the regulatory environment for the oil tanker industry is subject to continuous improvement, and provided several examples.
Transport Canada confirmed that there are no provisions in Canadian marine shipping legislation that would make Northern Gateway's marine voluntary commitments, or the findings of the TERMPOL Review Committee, mandatory or enforceable. The Panel notes that financial responsibility and compensation associated with marine shipping spills is addressed under the Marine Liability Act and is under the authority of the Government of Canada. The Panel finds that spill costs are unknowable in advance and would depend on a number of factors associated with a spill.
The Panel notes that, if the spill is attributable to the ship owner's gross negligence, or if the ship owner was reckless and had knowledge that the damage which occurred would probably result, limitation of liability does not apply and the ship owner's liability would be unlimited. Based on the evidence, the Panel finds that there is an existing regulatory regime to provide for costs associated with spills in marine waters. Many parties questioned whether a large marine oil spill could result in costs which exceed the current amount available of approximately 1.35 billion dollars. This regime is not regulated by either the National Energy Board or Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and, therefore, the Panel does not express a view as to the sufficiency of the current amount available.
Many participants told the Panel that an oil spill could potentially cause permanent ecological, social, and cultural damage. Northern Gateway said that spills from pipelines, the Kitimat Terminal, or tankers could result in petroleum products being released onto land, into water and onto shorelines, and into the air through evaporation. Northern Gateway assessed the potential consequences of a dilbit or condensate pipeline spill in different locations including agricultural land, a fen wetland, a low gradient watercourse (Crooked River), and a high gradient watercourse (Hunter Creek). Fish, other aquatic biota, and birds that feed or dwell at the water surface would be most affected.
Most wildlife would be affected to some degree by habitat loss, particularly those species with low mobility and small home ranges. Direct contact and absorption, ingestion, or inhalation of hydrocarbons could harm or kill animals and plants.
Mechanisms of toxicity vary depending on the organism, and toxic effects would be affected by location and season. Some chronic toxicity might remain after cleanup until biodegradation has reduced the levels of relatively persistent compounds.
A pipeline spill could adversely affect the human environment by interfering with land and water use by Aboriginal groups and other public and industrial user groups. Cleanup costs would increase if a terrestrial spill reaches water, because cleanup time and complexity would increase. Northern Gateway would provide appropriate compensation to Aboriginal groups, private commercial resource users, and landowners, according to standard industry practices and methods. Northern Gateway also prepared an ecological and human health risk assessment for the pipeline component of the project.
The pipeline ecological and human health risk assessment modelled potential ecological and human health effects resulting from a hypothetical, instantaneous, full-bore pipeline rupture releasing diluted bitumen, synthetic crude, or condensate at four watercourse locations along the pipeline route.
Each spill was evaluated for high and low river flow scenarios, broadly representing summer and winter river flow.
Northern Gateway said that the risk assessment model considered changes due to weathering of physical and chemical properties of the spilled products. Northern Gateway said that the primary focus of the ecological risk assessment was to quantify the risk of acute and chronic effects to aquatic biota. Assessment of acute ecological risk focused on the short-term effects (7 to 50 days) for each spill scenario, with natural recovery (no spill cleanup). The chronic ecological assessment began after the acute exposure assessment ended, and extended for up to 2 years post-spill.
Three representative petroleum products were evaluated, representing a broad range of physical and chemical characteristics affecting the fate, distribution, and effects of spilled hydrocarbons. Environmental fate models use representative environmental data and simplified descriptions of the environment and environmental processes. The models were based on extensive experience with spills in both marine and freshwater environments.
Northern Gateway said that the effects of a spill are influenced by the characteristics of the product, environmental conditions, and the precise locations and types of organisms present.
Northern Gateway assessed the acute (immediate or short-term) effects of a pipeline spill using a model called the Spill Impact Model Application Package (SIMAP). Synthetic crude oil was sometimes found to have a greater tendency to sink than other products, as it was relatively easily entrained in the water column and interacted with suspended and bottom sediments. The spatial extent of acute effects was typically higher for synthetic crude oil and condensate, than for dilbit. Fish and other aquatic organisms could be exposed to potentially lethal concentrations of oil or condensate for several kilometres downstream of the spill site. All scenarios predicted a large amount of entrained oil and high concentrations of dissolved aromatics moving down the entire stretch of modelled river and beyond.
Northern Gateway used acute effects assessment results to assess potential chronic (long-term) effects, focusing on the fate of oil that stranded on shorelines or deposited to river sediments.


Northern Gateway assessed chronic effects on shoreline soils, sediment, and water quality, including sediment pore water, plants, invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. The predicted product concentrations were compared against toxicity benchmark values to assess the potential for chronic effects. Northern Gateway said that, although fish and benthic invertebrates would be subject to acute effects after the initial phase of a spill, hydrocarbon concentrations in river water were expected to decrease substantially below the chronic effect thresholds for fish and other aquatic biota.
The company said that, where oil deposited to sediment, predicted hydrocarbon concentrations and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment pore water were, for the most part, unlikely to cause adverse effects to developing fish eggs. Northern Gateway concluded that conditions harmful to developing fish eggs could occur for a period of weeks following a major oil spill. Northern Gateway said that the effects of a hydrocarbon spill would be reversible and that the environment would recover with time.
Northern Gateway said that the spill scenarios modelled in the pipeline ecological and human health risk assessment were unlikely to occur. Hydrocarbons with higher concentrations of volatile organic compounds and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons would generally be expected to create more toxic effects. Northern Gateway said that, in general, spill effects would be more significant in slow flowing watercourses with fine-grained sediments than in fast flowing watercourses with coarse-grained substrates. Northern Gateway said that fish and aquatic biota, wildlife, and vegetation would be affected during the acute phase of the spills evaluated. In response to the Province of British Columbia, Northern Gateway said that it had broken new ground in environmental assessment, since the modelling of chronic effects from oil spills is something that has rarely been done before. The Haisla Nation submitted a review of the pipeline ecological and human health risk assessment.
The Haisla Nation asked how mass balance models can reliably quantify the fate of a hydrocarbon at all times without the use of real oil spill data. Participants asked about the origin of data used in the pipeline ecological and human health risk assessment. The Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research, the Province of British Columbia, and the Haisla Nation questioned how stream flow rates were calculated and incorporated into the model.
Several parties, including the Haisla Nation, questioned Northern Gateway regarding the applicability of the SIMAP model to rivers, and its suitability for ecological risk assessment purposes. The Friends of Morice-Bulkley said that the Sutherland River contains provincially significant fish habitat, as it is the spawning and rearing channel for more than 80 per cent of Babine Lake rainbow trout. Northern Gateway said that total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in the representative petroleum products it modelled are either similar to, or less than, other crude oils including those derived from Alberta and the Alaska North Slope.
The Haisla Nation questioned Northern Gateway on the potential toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and how they were considered in the pipeline risk assessment. The Haisla Nation said that the concentrations of total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that cause chronic toxicity range from about 1 microgram per litre to more than 100 micrograms per litre.
In response to Haisla Nation questions about the range of petroleum products to be shipped, Northern Gateway said that products with much higher total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations than those modelled could be shipped on the pipeline. Northern Gateway conducted an ecological risk assessment for an accidental release of 250 cubic metres of representative diluted bitumen and condensate in the marine environment at the Kitimat Terminal, under summer inflowing wind conditions. Tala works in ACF’s Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response and understands the importance of keeping families safe and together during a disaster. Make sure to involve your children in the planning process, when you include children they’re more likely to remember the plan and act on it. LEPC's are crucial to local hazardous materials planning and community right-to-know programs. Graphics containing text, PDF files, and special applications on this page cannot be translated.
Almost all participants in the Panel's process expressed concern about the potential for spills from pipelines, the Kitimat Terminal, and tankers associated with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. The Panel notes that much of the evidence focused on potential spill effects and emergency preparedness and response planning in these environments. The spatial scope of the Panel's assessment was the pipeline, the Kitimat Terminal, and the marine shipping component of the project out to Canada's territorial sea boundary (also commonly referred to as the 12-mile limit). Compliance information is used to track company performance trends and to assess the amount of oversight required in the future.
The report said that the Board had designed a sound risk-informed approach to monitor regulated companies' adherence to regulations and Board expectations.
A summary of relevant legislation, guidelines, and policies pertaining to shipping and navigational safety and oil spill preparedness and response is provided below.
Transport Canada said that it has a comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework that helps ensure marine transportation is safe, secure, and environmentally responsible. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is the main legislation governing safety in marine transportation and protection of the marine environment. Transport Canada said that international organizations such as the International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organization play a central role in establishing the highest possible maritime standards for safety and security, protection of the environment, and safety of seafarers. The International Maritime Organization also deals with international aspects of liability, compensation, and the facilitation of maritime traffic.
Transport Canada has two main programs for monitoring compliance: Flag State Control and Port State Control. Canada works together with the global Port State Control community to verify that foreign vessels entering Canada are in compliance with strict international safety and anti-pollution standards. The Pacific Pilotage Authority, a federal Crown corporation, operates pilotage service on the west coast. Vessels must have the appropriate navigation equipment, follow navigational rules and procedures, and have effective means of communications.
The Waterways Management Program is intended to support safe, economical, and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waterways.
Shipping in these zones is monitored by the Canadian Coast Guard a€“ Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS). AIS automatically provides information including the ship's identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational status, and other safety-related information, to AIS-equipped shore stations, other vessels, and aircraft. The Places of Refuge Contingency Plan is based on International Maritime Organization guidelines.
The most suitable place of refuge can only be determined after the details of the specific incident are known. Aids to navigation are provided to help mariners navigate safely and do not replace prudent navigation practices or the use of onboard navigational equipment such as the latest charts, Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, and radar.
This information is communicated to mariners through Notice to Shipping MCTS broadcasts and Notice to Mariner publications and Internet postings.
It also said that the Government of Canada was proposing improvements to navigational aids.
Safety management systems are formal management systems that strengthen safety awareness and pollution prevention practices. The requirement for a safety management system is an independent safety requirement and it does not replace safety requirements under other regulations.
The TERMPOL Review Committee includes representatives of federal departments and authorities, including specialized subject matter experts in marine transportation.
It said that, in the event of a spill larger than 10,000 tonnes (approximately 11,200 cubic metres), the company's capabilities can be supplemented by resources of the Canadian Coast Guard, by resources from other regions, or internationally though the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation.
These services include operational spill response, spill management, government and stakeholder liaison, and access to technical advisors. The letter outlined the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation's role, responsibilities, response capability, and state of readiness, including its access to external resources through mutual aid agreements and its Fishers Oil Spill Emergency Team, and its training program which is monitored by Transport Canada.
It said that, for a spill from a ship, the ship owner is the responsible party and is liable for reasonable costs as outlined in the Marine Liability Act. It said that the Canadian Coast Guard acts as the Federal Monitoring Officer and Lead Agency for all ship-source marine spills, in addition to maintaining its own spill response preparedness capacity. The Regional Environmental Emergencies Team is a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary group that provides consolidated and coordinated environmental advice, information, and assistance in the event of an environmental emergency. It said that equipment and resources must be available on-site to immediately contain and control an oil spill incident at the facility. The Committee is addressing issues raised in the Office of the Auditor General's audit on oil spills from ships.
Transport Canada had completed the scoping stage of the project and had consulted with its federal partners. Brown and the Coastal First Nations, Transport Canada said that the Government's Economic Action Plan 2012 provides funding for a variety of ship safety and spill response measures including enhancing the existing tanker inspection regime, legislative changes, updating navigational products, creation of the Tanker Safety Expert Panel, and research on marine pollution risks. This decline has been even more apparent since regulatory changes in 1990 following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which required a phase-in of double-hulled tankers in the international fleet.
The three most common types of incidents were equipment malfunctions, problems with propulsion, steering, or engine function, and very small spills from tankers at berth at the marine terminal. This Convention imposes strict liability on the ship owner for oil pollution from its ship, subject to a limited number of defenses. Northern Gateway said that, if the spill is attributable to the ship owner's gross negligence, or if the ship owner was reckless and had knowledge that the damage which occurred would probably result, this limitation of liability does not apply and the ship owner's liability would be unlimited. This organization manages two compensation funds (1992 Fund and Supplementary Fund) created through two International Marine Organization conventions that Canada ratified and adopted through Part 6 of the Marine Liability Act.
This establishes the 1992 Fund, which is the second tier of compensation in the event of a tanker spill of persistent oil.
It covers actual losses and reasonable expenses that can be directly linked to the pollution incident.
The current maximum liability for the fund is approximately $158 million for a single incident, which would apply to spills noted in Table 7.1.
The admissibility of claims to the fund is the same as the criteria established for the shipowner's liability and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. In response, Northern Gateway said that there has never been a spill in Canada exceeding the compensation available under the various regimes.
Northern Gateway responded that the company would be prepared to work with the Gitxaala Nation and other participating coastal First Nations and appropriate government agencies to quantify harvests and the quality of harvested foods and other resources, with a focus on the Confined Channel Assessment Area. It also asked whether the company fully considered local data within a First Nation area, specifically the Gitxaala Nation. Coastal First Nations said that the use of passive values could provide monetary estimates of what people are willing to pay to prevent an oil spill through mitigation measures. In response to Northern Gateway questioning, Coastal First Nations said that $28 billion of this total estimate was for non-market values including ecological services such as nutrient cycling.
Northern Gateway committed to establishing a Fisheries Liaison Committee which, among other issues, would address compensation for both routine effects of the project as well as oil spill effects. In the case of the project, this includes the two pipelines and the Kitimat Terminal to the tanker connection point.
Marine shipping legislation and associated regulations, standards, programs, and policies fall primarily under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.
The regime addresses various elements related to ship design, ship operation, navigational safety, inspection, compliance, enforcement, and oil spill response planning. These changes have led to a substantial reduction in the number and size of oil tanker spills since the 1970s and, in particular, since 1990.
The Panel finds that these voluntary commitments should be mandatory and enforceable as conditions under any certificates which may be issued under the National Energy Board Act. The Panel understands that the marine shipping financial responsibility and compensation regime is intended to balance the need for appropriate compensation with the need for maritime commerce. Liability for any spill along the pipeline route, and from the Terminal into marine water, before the product is loaded in the tanker, would be covered by the liability condition imposed by the Panel. Assuming no gross negligence or reckless actions, the Panel notes that a ship owner or its insurers would have to provide up to approximately $145 million as a maximum liability for an oil spill.
The Panel notes that Transport Canada and Northern Gateway said that a total of $1.35 billion would be available from the ship owners maximum liability, the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund, the 1992 Fund, and the Supplementary Fund, for any releases from tankers into marine waters, whether within the Confined Channel Assessment Area, the Open Water Area, or beyond. The Panel notes the evidence that, since the establishment of the Supplementary Fund in 1992, there have been no spills throughout the world where the total funds available were insufficient to cover all costs and losses. The Panel notes that any changes to the marine spill compensation framework would be handled by the regulatory bodies that are responsible for the current regimes.
Northern Gateway said that large spills would be likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that are generally reversible through mitigation and natural recovery. A condensate spill would result in acute effects and would be toxic to biota but would typically tend to evaporate from water and land relatively quickly.
It said that dilbit and condensate represent the two extremes of products that would be shipped on the project, in terms of physical and chemical properties.
It said that the work was completed to respond to intervenor concerns about long-term environmental, resource, and health effects of pipeline spills. The company said that the volumes and locations of the hypothetical releases were derived from its semi-quantitative risk assessment. The simulated watercourses included Chickadee Creek, (which flows into the Athabasca River), Crooked River (which flows into Davie Lake), the Morice River, and the Kitimat River. Chemicals of potential concern, including monocyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, were also tracked in the simulated spills. It said that the assessment was conducted according to accepted methods and guidance published by regulatory agencies, including the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The model ran until it indicated that floating product was no longer present in the modelled waterbody.
These uncertainties are generally addressed by incorporating conservative assumptions into the analysis.
Northern Gateway said that the results would be similar to those obtained from the instantaneous full-bore rupture scenarios it assessed. They do not perfectly represent or reproduce all of the environmental processes or factors present in an actual spill event. They provide a reasonable simulation of the major environmental effects of spilled hydrocarbons.
The goal of the pipeline ecological and human health risk assessment was not to forecast every situation that could potentially occur, but to describe a range of possible consequences to inform planning. The model simulated potential spill effects on a variety of aquatic organisms, including fish, and on wildlife such as birds, mammals, and reptiles. Both synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen could sink depending on the conditions modelled. This limited its effects to a smaller area but created opportunities for wildlife to encounter it. The company said that, although products transported downstream beyond the area modelled would also have the potential to cause effects, they would be more dispersed by then and would represent a lower level of risk than the more concentrated accumulations upstream.
The chronic assessment of spill effects assumed that some shoreline cleanup activity would be completed. Northern Gateway said that, when the ratio of predicted value to benchmark value is less than one, adverse effects are not considered to be likely due to the conservative assumptions built into the analysis.
Effects tended to be more severe in smaller watercourses like Chickadee Creek, and in the slow-moving Crooked River, where organic soils and fine-grained sediments were predicted to trap and retain hydrocarbons. The time frame for this decline could range from weeks to over 2 years depending on circumstances and spill location. In gravels most likely to be used by salmonid fish as spawning habitats, expected hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment pore water were below established toxicity benchmarks. It said that hydrocarbon concentrations would rapidly decline, due to weathering, to concentrations below effects thresholds. It said that appropriate response and remediation activities can substantially reduce the time required for recovery. It said that, if they occurred, the potential adverse environmental and human health effects may be significant. Effects to rivers or other watercourses would vary considerably, with effects extending more than 50 kilometres downstream.
It said that, as the movement of oil on land tends to be slower than in aquatic environments, response strategies on land can be targeted and implemented more readily. After the acute phase of the spill the hydrocarbons in the river water would decline to the point that they would not be expected to create chronic adverse effects to fish and other aquatic biota. It said that the typical focus has been on acute effects and emergency response, with less effort to quantify chronic effects. It said that there was the need for more detailed site-specific and situation-specific information in the Kitimat River. Northern Gateway said that any real spill of hydrocarbon would be unique, with many site specific factors affecting transport and fate of hydrocarbon components.
Northern Gateway said that typical modelling practice is to use as much site-specific data as possible, and then augment those data using professional judgement based on similar rivers and regions. In response, Northern Gateway said that it used the maximum mean monthly flows and minimum mean monthly flows to represent the high and low flow rates, respectively. Northern Gateway said that the SIMAP model has been used in hundreds of Natural Resource Damage Assessments in the United States for both riverine and marine environments. It wondered whether an uncontrolled spill could cause extensive acute toxicity of juvenile rainbow trout or developing eggs in the river. Northern Gateway said it had modelled the acute toxicity of numerous compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. It said that toxic effects range from induction of non-lethal enzymes, all the way up to mortality.
Northern Gateway said that this would not change the conclusion that a large spill would result in significant adverse environmental effects. The size of the simulated spill is the maximum credible release volume estimated for tanker loading or unloading at the terminal, as determined in Northern Gateway's marine shipping quantitative risk analysis. The membership comes from the local area and should be familiar with factors that affect public safety, the environment, and the economy of the jurisdiction.
As with any computer translation, conversion is not context-sensitive and may not convert text into its intended meaning. This chapter examines Northern Gateway's ability to anticipate, prevent, and respond to project malfunctions and accidents. The Onshore Pipeline Regulations also reflect the National Energy Board's expectation for continual improvement with regard to safety, security, environmental protection, and the promotion of a safety culture.


It recommended that the National Energy Board establish and implement a clear action plan that sets out specific steps to improve the Board's risk-informed model, including practices and procedures for monitoring compliance, documenting compliance, and procedures for follow-up on non-compliances. The summary is based on Transport Canada's response and other evidence from the Government of Canada. Other federal departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada, also have key roles regarding marine shipping activities and protection of the marine environment.
It aims to balance shipping safety and marine environmental protection while encouraging maritime commerce, and is applicable to all vessels operating in Canadian waters and Canadian vessels worldwide. Canada works closely with these organizations in adopting these international standards into its marine safety regulations.
International Maritime Organization member countries develop and promote the adoption of conventions, protocols, codes, and recommendations, to achieve their common objectives. Flag State Control ensures that Canadian-flagged vessels are inspected to both Canadian regulations and, for vessels on international voyages, the appropriate international memoranda, conventions and protocols that are integrated into Canadian regulations.
Ships that are found to be in serious violation of standards are detained in port until their deficiencies have been rectified. In reference to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Transport Canada said that local pilots would board tankers at established pilot boarding stations, either by helicopter or pilot boats, depending on visibility and weather conditions. Vessels must also have up-to-date nautical charts and, for each voyage, a passage plan that takes into account relevant information for safe navigation and protection of the environment, and allows the progress of the vessel to be closely monitored.
The Canadian Coast Guard said that the physical characteristics of the proposed shipping routes for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project fall within the Channel Design Guidelines of the Waterways Management Program. Ships must report to an MCTS officer 24 hours before entering the VTS Zone and report prescribed information about the ship and its intended route, including any pollutant cargoes and defects. Brown, the Government of Canada said that, even in weak coverage areas, there is an update on a vessel's movements every minute. When a vessel requests assistance through the MCTS, regional officers would invoke the plan and work with all appropriate partners to resolve the issue as quickly and effectively as possible. It also said that pre-designation of places of refuge is of little value due to the different circumstances associated with each incident. Canadian Hydrographic Services also receives this information for inclusion onto nautical charts. Northern Gateway said that it is has had discussions with Canadian Coast Guard as to how future additions to aids to navigation, including provision of shore based radar coverage, may be paid for, constructed, and maintained. Northern Gateway also committed to funding the installation of new radar and navigational aids in the event that the Canadian Coast Guard or Transport Canada does not fund them prior to operation of the project. Safety management systems integrate formal rules and processes to enhance safety of daily operations and seek to identify and manage any risks before they cause accidents. The Minister of Transport has authorized five Responsible Organizations to perform Safety Management System certification of Canadian vessels and the companies that operate them. Northern Gateway said that it was committed to fully implementing the risk mitigation measures that it had submitted to the TERMPOL Review Committee. To clarify this point, the Panel asked Northern Gateway and Transport Canada whether the TERMPOL Review Committee's recommendations, and other voluntary commitments made by Northern Gateway that exceed regulatory requirements, were enforceable under any existing marine shipping legislation. It said that these response organizations must demonstrate the ability to respond to marine oil spills of up to 10,000 tonnes within prescribed time standards and operating environments. It said that responsible parties generally take responsibility for a marine spill and identify one person to act as the Incident Commander to lead the response to the incident.
The Province of British Columbia can also have a role in marine spill response if a spill threatens or impacts shorelines or wildlife. Federal, provincial, and municipal government departments, Aboriginal communities, private sector agencies, and local individuals are represented. Transport Canada said that their main purpose is to set in motion the necessary actions in a structured, logical, and timely manner to stop or minimize the discharge and to reduce its effects.
The Committee has developed an integrated Management Action Plan to address recommendations and has initiated a process to report on progress. The Haisla Nation said that, in the absence of state-of-the-art prevention systems in Prince William Sound, any one of those incidents could have resulted in major vessel casualties or oil spills. In exchange, ship owners are entitled to limit their liability to a maximum amount linked to the tonnage of the vessel. The purpose of the 1992 Fund is to provide additional compensation beyond the ship owner's liability discussed above. Section 107 of the Marine Liability Act specifies the treatment of claims for loss of income, including subsistence fishing or hunting.
It also said that, since the establishment of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary Fund, there has never been a spill globally that has exceeded compensation available under the international funds. Information on landed harvests would build on information contained in the Gitxaala Use Study.
Northern Gateway said that it did not give special weight to costs imposed on Aboriginal communities versus other communities in Canada. Northern Gateway's expert said that his experience with trying to monetize passive use values was that the numbers tended to be low and that the amount that could be monetized through modern techniques is very small. It said that the value of ecological services is difficult to estimate and that the purpose of the work was to give a general order of magnitude as to the value of ecological services. Northern Gateway expected that it would work with the Fisheries Liaison Committee to document the type of catch and fishing efforts over the first 5 years of the project, using Fisheries and Oceans Canada catch-effort data. The regulatory functions of the National Energy Board, including those following the issuance of any certificate under the National Energy Board Act, would address compliance with conditions set out by the Panel. Northern Gateway has chosen to exceed regulatory requirements through its marine voluntary commitments in relation to navigation, safety, and oil spill preparedness and response planning. The Panel notes that there is no liability cap in the case of a condensate spill from a tanker. In the event of spill costs that exceeded available funds, the money would have to come from corporate entities or governments. Diluted bitumen and synthetic crude would result in toxicological and physical effects and would be more persistent, likely causing both acute and chronic effects. Diluted bitumen is a viscous, persistent, moderately heavy oil, and condensate is a low-viscosity, volatile fluid that weathers rapidly.
Other locations could have a high concentration of rare species or species with limited distributions. These watercourses represented a range of gradient, flows, watersheds, discharge locations, downstream resources, and users.
Any large spill would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects whether it is confined to land or enters a wetland or watercourse. Some could have characteristics or behave in the environment in ways that were not fully represented by the models. The model estimated amounts of the hydrocarbon product and chemicals contained in the atmosphere, water column, and sediments, and on the water surface and shorelines.
Despite the presence of fine-grained sediments in the Kitimat River estuary, the model predicted very light deposition of hydrocarbons there.
It said that the most likely outcome is that a portion of the eggs or larvae of a single year-class of fish could be lost, but that recovery would occur in subsequent years. Weathered residues would be less toxic than fresh oil, and were not predicted to cause significant effects. Remediation of terrestrial spills would generally be completed to applicable environmental quality standards for the local land use. Northern Gateway said that local populations of smaller animals and waterfowl were more likely to experience adverse chronic effects than wide ranging species such as the grizzly bear or bald eagle. It said that it had used state-of-the- art models and conservative approaches throughout the pipeline risk assessment.
It said that the pipeline risk assessment may underestimate risks because it does not include sufficient site-specific physical, chemical, biological, and ecological data. It said that mass balance equations and models are the only way to make defensible predictions about potential exposures and risks for hypothetical spills. Northern Gateway said that the data for each river came from a variety of different sources, including Environment Canada.
The Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research and the Friends of Morice-Bulkley asked whether Northern Gateway had explicitly validated the SIMAP model for northern interior British Columbia salmon rivers such as the Morice River and Kitimat River.
Northern Gateway said that such a situation could occur, and was the reason it was focused on preventing such an occurrence through its risk based design, including thicker pipe and isolation valves at key watercourses.
It said that, in general, potential toxicity increases with increasing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels, and that other factors must also be considered.
Northern Gateway said that its assessments indicated that, even if total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in the modelled petroleum products were much higher, potential effects would be at the lower end of the range described by the Haisla Nation. That expertise is essential as the LEPC advises the writers of the Local Emergency Response Plan, so that the plan is tailored to the needs of its planning district.
No special permission or authority is required to transport goods in vessels that comply with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
Port State Control is a ship inspection program whereby foreign vessels entering Canada's waters are boarded and inspected to ensure compliance with various major international maritime conventions. The objective of Port State Control is to detect and inspect sub-standard ships and to help eliminate the threat that they pose to life, property, and the marine environment. A minimum of two pilots would board the tankers for transit to and from the Kitimat Terminal and through coastal waters. There are vessel reporting requirements and vessel routing measures that also help ensure safe navigation. Vessels are not allowed to enter a VTS Zone unless they receive clearance from an MCTS officer.
The Canadian Coast Guard said that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project does not involve a significant workload increase for MCTS. This improves a ship's situational awareness and the ability of shore VTS, if equipped to receive AIS, to monitor marine traffic. Places of refuge are not pre-designated and would depend on the circumstances of each situation. The committee reviews a series of technical reports and studies prepared by the proponent according to terms of reference established by the committee. The report focused on navigation and safety of proposed tanker traffic to and from the Kitimat Terminal, including berthing and mooring procedures and cargo transfer operations at the terminal. Their answers indicated that the recommendations and commitments are not directly tied to any legislative tool and, to be enforceable, would need to be tied to a certificate issued under the National Energy Board Act. If the responsible party is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond, the Canadian Coast Guard would take over and direct the response, working with the response organization.
Environment Canada and the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment co-chair the Regional Environmental Emergencies Team program in British Columbia. There have been five incidents of double-hulled tankers that have had a collision or grounding that penetrated the cargo tanks.
Based on the polluter-pays principle, the Marine Liability Act is the principal legislation dealing with the liability of ship owners and vessel operators in relation to passengers, cargo, pollution, and property damage. To ensure that victims are protected, the Convention requires that ship owners carry insurance to cover the full amount of their liability. The Gitxaala Nation questioned Northern Gateway on the type of compensation, if any, that would be available to compensate Gitxaala Nation and its members for indirect or non-economic losses in the event that a spill impacts their traditional marine uses or their social, cultural, or psychological wellbeing.
Harvest quality, and some information on quantity, would also be obtained through the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program. Northern Gateway indicated that the cost benefit analysis was used to compare construction and operating costs with the costs of a potential spill. The company said that, for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, these values are expected to be low. It said that, although these values are important and should be considered, they should not be utilized for project-specific decision making and that more detailed analysis to fully understand such costs would be required. International organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization, play a role in the development of marine shipping safety regulations and standards.
It said that recovery time would depend on the local environment, species affected, and other factors such as spill volume and characteristics of the spilled product. The modelled scenarios also reflected specific concerns, such as locations of interest, expressed by the public or Aboriginal groups. Northern Gateway said that the density of the modelled dilbit product was approximately the maximum density that the oil pipeline would be designed to transport. Oiling of shorelines was predicted to cause acute effects on shoreline plant communities and soil invertebrates. It said that, while the presence of residual, weathered hydrocarbons could persist for an extended period of time, adverse environmental effects would not be expected to continue beyond 1 to 2 years and are expected to be reversible, especially with appropriate response and remediation activities. The Haisla Nation noted the potential for a single spill to affect up to three generations of salmonids (adults, juveniles, larvae, or eggs) present in the Kitimat River, causing the loss of 1 year's reproduction. As an example, it said that it had assumed high concentrations of suspended sediment in the water in some scenarios, which could cause some oil to sink during the simulation. It recognized that there can be annual, seasonal, and spatial variation in stream flows and velocities.
Northern Gateway responded that, as modelling attempts to simplify complex natural processes, it is not necessary to specifically validate a model against the specific river being examined.
The company said it had been very clear that adverse and significant acute and chronic effects could result from a spill, depending on circumstances, although the probability of such events occurring is very low.
In addition to its formal duties, the LEPC serves as a focal point in the community for information and discussions about hazardous substance emergency planning, and health and environmental risks as well as natural disaster planning.
Transport Canada said that this enables Canada to fully enforce safety and environmental standards in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. All foreign tankers are inspected on their first visit to Canada and once a year thereafter.
The use of local marine pilots for transit to and from the Kitimat Terminal, as proposed by Northern Gateway, meets the requirements set out in the Pacific Pilotage Authority Regulations.
This allows any safety or environmental concerns to be addressed before the ship enters Canadian waters.
Northern Gateway has identified potential places of refuge within the Confined Channel Assessment Area. Transport Canada monitors and oversees the audit and certification process for the International Safety Management Code as part of its responsibilities under international shipping treaties. After reviewing the studies, the committee may request additional information or it may make recommendations related to the proposal. Northern Gateway said that the TERMPOL Review complements the Panel's process by providing a forum for a detailed expert review of navigational issues, vessel operations, and accident hazards. The issue of the enforceability and legislative backing for Northern Gateway's marine voluntary commitments was also raised by other parties including the Haisla Nation.
Vessels such as those proposed for use by Northern Gateway must have an arrangement with a response organization to provide marine oil spill response services when requested by a member, the Coast Guard, or a lead government agency. Donaldson, Gitxaala Nation, and the Government of Canada, filed or referred to two reports from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada which have relevance to the marine shipping component of the project. Transport Canada said that the Marine Liability Act establishes uniform rules on liability and compensation by balancing the interests of ship owners and other parties involved in maritime accidents.
Northern Gateway indicated that the Gitxaala Nation and its members would be entitled to be compensated for all proximate losses reasonably foreseeable as a result of a spill. Northern Gateway said that it had confidence in the cost estimates generated by the cost benefit analysis because the analysis took into account data from tanker and ship-based spills that have occurred worldwide. Northern Gateway said that it would be responsible for any damages directly attributable to its operations. Any refinements or additions to Canada's marine shipping regulatory regime would be under the jurisdiction of these authorities as they have the appropriate mandate, regulatory authority, and expertise. The company said that it had modelled the rivers at representative high and low flows to represent typical annual variation in flows. It said that SIMAP has been used to simulate a wide range of river systems, and that the company appropriately used local data as model inputs to characterize the rivers that were assessed.
The work undertaken may also be used by other agencies or bodies when considering their own regulatory obligations and making recommendations. The construction and operation of the marine terminal would be under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and were not reviewed by the TERMPOL Committee.
The 2010 and 2011 reports discussed oil spills from ships, and transportation of dangerous products, respectively. Transport Canada said that a related component of the risk assessment was the creation of a Tanker Safety Expert Panel by the Government of Canada.
Northern Gateway said that there have been no significant spills resulting from structural failure of a double-hulled tanker.
There are various regimes available to pay for cleanup and compensation costs, such as ship owners' insurance and domestic and international funds.
Northern Gateway said that estimated costs for a specific incident would be based on best available evidence. Monitoring of ship traffic within a VTS Zone allows MCTS officers to provide information services that help on-board navigational decision-making.
Transport Canada said that it had reviewed and updated its Environmental Prevention and Response National Preparedness Plan in November 2011 in response to the Office of the Auditor General's report. In response to questions from the Gitxaala Nation, Northern Gateway said that every large spill dating from 1970 has been from a single hull tanker.
The company provided what it described as a conservatively high estimate of $15,000 per barrel for clean up costs and $22,500 per barrel for costs related to environmental damage.
Between ship owner insurance and other federal legislation and international agreements, there is approximately $1.35 billion worth of coverage.
Transport Canada said that this is one of the largest amounts of compensation available in the world.



Emf meter online
Free films to download on my ipad
National geographic news 2014
Disaster survival kit supplies 4u


Comments to “Emergency planning northern ireland 2014”

  1. BALACA_SIRTIQ_USAQ writes:
    Dust and tap on a pipe or wall so rescuers barely rescued 5 chapters road than there are licensed.
  2. 2oo8 writes:
    Money to invest, positive, go ahead and residence Alternatively Senior Care.
  3. Agamirze writes:
    Cannot agree with all of it as scalar and scenar devices work and the.