D Barry Kirkham, QC+ Robin C Macfarlane+ Duncan J Manson+ Alan A Frydenlund, QC+* Danie! W Burnett, QC+ Harvey S Delaney+ Ronald G Paton+ Paul J Brown+ Karen S Thompson+ Gary MYaffe+ Laura A Wright Harley J Harris+ James H McBeath+ Kari F Richardson+ Scott H Stephens+ James W Zaitsoff+ David W P Moriarty Daniel H Coles+* Katharina R Spotzl Sameer Kamboj Patrick J Weafer Georgia Barnard

Rose-Mary L Basham, QC, Associate Counsel+ Jennifer M Williams, Associate Counsel+ Hon Walter S Owen, OC, QC, LLD (1981)

Josephine M Nadel, QC+ James D Burns+ Allison R Kuchta+ Jeffrey B Lightfoot+ James L Carpick+ Christopher P Weafer+ Patrick J Haber]+ Gregory J Tucker, QC+ LAW CORPORATION Heather E Maconachie Terence W Yu+ Jonathan L Williams+ Michael F Robson+ Paul A Brackstone+* Barbara E Janzen Pamela E Sheppard+ George J Roper+ Jocelyn M Bellerud+ Tony R Anderson POBox49130 Brian Y K Cheng- Steffi M Boyce

+ Law Corporation * Also of the Yukon Bar

John I Bird, QC (2005) - Also of the Washington Bar

Three Bentall Centre 2900-595 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC Canada V7X 1J5

May 7, 2019

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

British Columbia Utilities Commission 6th Floor, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3

Attention: Patrick Wruck, Commission Secretary and Manager, Regulatory Support

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Telephone 604 688-0401 Fax 604 688-2827 Website www.owenbird.com

Direct Line: 604 691-7557

Direct Fax: 604 632-4482

E-mail: cweafer@owenbird.com

Our File: 23841/0204

Re: FortisBC Energy Inc. ("FEI") Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Application for the Inland Gas Upgrade Project~ Project No. 1598988

We are counsel to the Commercial Energy Consumers Association of British Columbia (the "CEC"). Attached please find the CEC's second set of Information Requests to FEI with respect to the above-noted matter.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

°/\EN BIRD

~~er

AW CORPORATION

CPW/jj

cc: CEC cc: FortisBC Energy Inc. cc: Registered Interveners

{01277038;1} a INTERLAW MEMBER of lNTERLAw, AN INTERNATIONAL Assoc1AT10N

'VJd) OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS IN MAJOR WORLD CENTRES

C4-8

{01277043;1}

COMMERCIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (“CEC”)

INTERVENER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 2

TO FORTISBC ENERGY INC.

FortisBC Energy Inc. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Application

for the Inland Gas Upgrade Project - Project No. 1598988

May 7, 2019

34. Reference: Exhibit B 5, CEC 1.1.3 and 1.3.2 and 1.3.4

As such, FEl 's approach to system-wide corrosion monitoring for its p·pelin.es is as fo[lovvs. Tak.en as a whole, this approach addresses all FEI p·petin.es.

Asset Class Diameter Range System-Wide Corrosion Monitoring Approach (NPS)

Transmission pipelines ope rating 6 and greater In-line ·m,pection at greater tt, an or equal to 30% SMYS

Transmission pipelines ope rating Less than 6 Modified ECDA; however, FEI will continue to at greatertti an or equal to 30% mornitor rechno'logy available fo r mitigating the SMYS potential /o r m pture failure on these rnes

Piipelirnes operarng al less fharn A rny Integrity-related activities su ch as CP 30%SMYS Survei larnce, visu al observation any r me !he

p·peli rne may be exposed durirng ifs ilecycle, arnd leak detection are perform ed. A &ignificant cond"il ion monitoring program (such as a regular in-line inspection program ) or mil!igation (replacement, reoonditioning, or abandonment) is only plan ned uporn an occunrence of a ;relevant leak history.

If yes, please identify the areas in which FE] expects to see similar concerns.

Response:

IP1lease refer to Ile response ID CEC IIR 1.1 . .3. FB I has identified external c:orros·on as a pot,ential hazard to its entire buried steel p"pelcne system. Please also refer ID BOUC II< 1.4.1 for FIEl's assessment of the potential for a:clive corrosion on -cathodically protected p"pe 1n;es in its sys~em.

{01277043;1}

- 2 -

34.1 Please provide the number of pipelines lower than NP6 and operating at greater than 30%

SMYS.

34.2 What, if any, technologies has FEI identified to date that are expected to be available for

pipelines smaller than 6 NPS in the future, if any?

34.3 Does FEI intend to introduce some form of in-line inspection or other technology in all

its pipelines operating at greater than or equal to 30% SMYS, including NPS less than 6,

when such technologies becomes available?

34.3.1 If no, please quantify the number of pipelines that FEI expects to fit with ILI or

other technology.

34.4 Please provide a ballpark cost of installing ILI or other technology in the remainder of

pipelines that FEI expects to modify for corrosion monitoring.

34.5 Does FEI intend to conduct a quantitative cost/benefit analysis for doing so?

34.5.1 If no, please explain why not.

34.5.2 If yes, would FEI conduct the assessment itself or utilize specialized risk

assessment professionals? Please explain.

Respanse :

1.3.4 If FEI is expecting to experience similar issues in significant portions of its remaining transmission pipelines., is the a ment CPCN application part of a larger overall project that is not yet before the Commission? Please explain.

No , this Application is not part of a larger overall project that is not yet before the BCUC. Please refer to the responses to CEC I Rs 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. 11 is possible in the future, however, that FEI may prioritize investment for providing ILi capability o r other integrity management solutions for transmission pipelines operating at 30 percent SMYS or greater that are less than NPS 6 if the appropriate technology were to become proven and commercialized and industry standard practice were to include these smaller diameter pipelines.

{01277043;1}

- 3 -

35. Reference: Exhibit B-5, CEC 1.3.2

35.1 What pressures are considered to be ‘high pressure’ pipelines?

36. Reference: Exhibit B-2, BCUC 1.4.2 and 1.12.6

36.1 Please confirm that a random control dig would cost approximately the same as an

‘integrity’ dig.

3.2 Please discuss the potential consequences of a rupture.

Response:

As discussed in Section 3.3.4 ol lhe Application, a natural gas pipeline rupture has the potential to result in significant safety, reliability, environmental and regulato,y consequences. The following discusses these consequences.

• Safety Consequences: As noted in Section 3.3.4 of the Application, if the gas ignites. there can be significant safety i~acts beyond the inmediate area surrounding the pipeline. An ignited release can result in potential harm due to the ensuing fire and resulting thermal effects on people and property. The following is an excerpt from a Gas Research Institute Report GRl-00/0189. A Model for Sizing High Consequence Areas Associated with Natural Gas Pipelines, 2001, prepared by C-FER Technologies:

"The rupture of a high-pressure natural gas pipeline can lead to outcomes that can pose a significant threat to people and property in the immediate vicinity of the failure location. The dominant hazard is thermal radiation from a sustained fire ( ... )."

-1.2 For •ach ol 1h• 29 Transmission l.ate1'1is, pl• as• identify any control digs (i.e . digs where there has been no indic~ion of potentia corrosion from the above-41uum.l ::u1v~r.:;).

R~sponse:

FE! has not porforme<l control digs on any of tho 29 Transmission l.a:erals. FE! does not consider that rancom control d1,1s pro'1de su1t1c1ent value as they are na ta-geled to a specit,c site fer !he purposes of addressiOQ anv panicular inteijrir, ccn~rn.

As such, FEI has characterized many of its: estimates in the table be low as ~ni nimums". Additio, a ly, future returrin9 digs recp ired by the ANSIIN ... C[ [ CD,._ standard are not included in ths table.

The table below also inclu:les the percent3!'.le of the inle!lritv di11s prescribed under 1he ANSI/NACE ECDA stard,rd that would be control digs, a; re(1Jest• d by BCUC IR 1.12.6.1. 11 also inctude3 the number cJ digs identified b~ FEl 's application of its Modified ECDA standard, as reques!e<I by BCUC IR '1.12.7.

{01277043;1}

- 4 -

37. Reference: Exhibit B-2, BCUC 1.14.3

37.1 Please explain the causes of tap pressure changes.

37.2 Does FEI normally operate at maximum operating pressure on each lateral, or does that

change from time to time? Please explain.

Tho qraphs below expand on the infonnation provided in tho table in ihe response to BCUC IR 1.14 .1 , an<l separate out current tIrm customers' <lemand, torecasted growth In tIrm demand, industrial tirm, an<l industrial InterruptIble (I I 1 111 a stacke.:l bar lormat that Il lustrates the cumulative demand. The informa:ion is grouped by lateral system. Note uiat in me lower pressure ranges in the capacity graphs belOw, the PRS capacity an<l the system capacity (wilhoul PRS) i11l<:1 s.<£1 a lld llle11 a l a ll l<JWBI JJ18S.Sll18S lltB PRS L:cip<lt.:ily ,,111,J lllB sys.18111 c8p<1r..:ily follow lh6! s.21111;,, d6!di11i11y cc1p<Jt.:i ly L'.UIVB. Tt te 11eyu11 o f l1 11e y18pl1 wt11,H1e ll16! two l.'.UIVBS co ill( :idH i11dir:alHs ll1H opH1nli11g r:rn Klilirn1s wilHrH ll tH 1rn1l11>I v,ilvH l'Vl lll lcl IJH f11lly opHil cl11H lo 11p,c,frF.Am prF.,;,c,ur,,,,c, IF.·s,c, th;in 11-,p, SP.I f)Oint (? 9 ~ pP.r<:P.nl SMYS) nf the PRS In lhi,c, npP.rntintJ

area, the PRS is not limiting the capacity of the system. For the same reasons (because the control valve is fully open). any capacity upgrades that might be required to increase capacity to serve future increases in firm demand for tap pressures in this range would be no different in scale or scope with or without r RS and could not be addressed, for example, by removing the rRS.

MacKenz:ie System :

Macken1l1 Latual 168 & Loop 168 Demand and Capacity Graph "' ,, ~--~----------------------------~

.....

" ... , . ..., ""' ·---~~--~-~-~-....----~-~---~-~--------J.•"'1 .$.II.JI ~AW ._.,,.., •.AU CJllU • .llW 4.tt}J HM.U ).ill.I ':).t.W ).!IW )Al..l.l tu.w •.tw :t.• • tltw

lapllr~~~•t 1W>l:iaJ

- foum ~•rn c,,.,wth

- -- rRS ~pco1y

. .... . Mn. Ob:wr,ed r ~ f'reWl.l'C

{01277043;1}

- 5 -

37.3 Does the stacked bar chart represent the maximum demand experienced by the

transmission lateral, average value, or other value? Please clarify.

37.4 The CEC notes that in the Mackenzie system, the demand exceeds the system capacity

line at all tap pressures below 5,600kPag. Does the Mackenzie system or other lateral

ever operate below 5,600 kPag?

37.4.1 If yes, please comment on how the system capacity line exceeding the demand

affects customer experience, if at all.

37.5 Does FEI always operate at tap pressures which exceed its demand on the 29 laterals?

Please explain.

37.6 The CEC would like to understand how often interruptible customers currently

experience interruptions on the laterals and how this would change if PRS were

implemented. For each transmission lateral in which the PRS option has been screened

out due to capacity issues, please provide the historic demand by month for the last five

years in graph format for each year.

37.6.1 Please identify when interruptions were experienced and the duration of

interruptions on the above graphs or other format if appropriate.

37.6.2 Using an average of the last five years for demand, please plot the interruptions

that would occur under a PRS option.

38. Reference: Exhibit B-5, CEC 1.5.2

38.1 Does FEI undertake to pinpoint areas that its pipelines might be expected to have CP

shielding either because of the timing of the pipeline coating application, the geographic

characteristics of the terrain, or other circumstances that lead to shielding?

38.1.1 If yes, please explain when and how often this effort is undertaken.

38.1.2 If yes, please comment on how FEI uses this information.

38.1.3 If no, please explain why not.

5.2 What is causing the CP shielding on FEl's system? Please explain.

Response: FEI believes that the quality of coating appfication and type of coatings applied in the past has resulted in observed coating disbondment, which has contributed to CP shielding on FEl's pipeline system. FEI has also found CP shielding due to the presence of rocks and foreign structures in the backfill adjacent to the pipeline, which can both damage the coating and/or prevent CP current from reaching the pipeline.

{01277043;1}

- 6 -

39. Reference: Exhibit B-5, CEC 1.10.1

39.1 Please explain the difference between passive corrosion and active corrosion.

39.2 Were any integrity digs conducted on the Fording Lateral?

39.2.1 If no, please explain why not.

40. Reference: Exhibit B-5, CEC 1.18.1

40.1 Could the project be safely deferred for a period of time such as 2 years, 5 years or

longer?

40.1.1 If yes, over what period of time could the project be safely deferred? Please

explain why.

Figure 2: Interior Dig l oc.llio ns. (64 active .m d 12 pas.!. i\•e eorros.i01\ s.ites.)

18.1 Is i1 FEl's contention lha: the transmission laterals are currently unsafe?

Rc$ponsc:

No, it is not FEl's contention 11at the 29 Transmission Laterals are rurrently unsafe. As part o' i s Integrity Management Program for Pipelines, FEI uses a number of available methods ncudinq, but not limite1 to, recurrinq oi:erational activities such as leak survey and pipeline pat·ol as well as integrity montoring throu~h Modified ECDA to mitigate the risk of failure on the 29 Transmission Lateras. However. given the known limitations of these methods to detect external corrosion where there is cathodic p•otection shielding. the identified potential for pip?.linP. n1pl1 irP.. thP. av~il;1hility of mitio;1tinn ~ II rtion.c:;. ~nrl, in p;lrtir.uL-::ir. thP. rommon u~P. of II I for s.~IIP.r cli~mP.fP.r pi~ linA~ in thF. inrirn:try, FFI h~~ <' . .onr.h10P.0 that ~ AP~ ~ho ilct I~ t:icP.n to mitigate the poten:ial for rupture due to external corrosion.

{01277043;1}

- 7 -

40.1.2 If no, please explain why not.

40.2 Please calculate the potential savings for deferring the capital expenditures for a period of

5 years.

41. Reference: Exhibit B-5, CEC 1.23.3

41.1 Does FEI have a contracted threshold with its customers defining whether or not it can

restrict or curtail gas supply to interruptible customers? Please explain.

41.2 Please briefly elaborate on customers’ expectation of a ‘reasonable level of reliable

service for the majority of the year’.

41.3 What alternative fuels might the customers migrate to if they were curtailed or restricted

too often?

42. Reference: Exhibit B-5, CEC 1.30.2

:::>3 3 Vv'h.11 :::m:~ FFl'~ rP.!.pon.~ihi!iti?.!=. k) it~ int?.mrptihl?. t.lJJ:;;tOn"F.ffi, ;;:nd how '11.0.lri thi~ be impacted by reducing ope.rati,g pressure?

Rt:!SUOIISt:!:

As pe, i~ BCUC 41J10Vt'll liiliT. FEI ~ J;t:111tillt'U to tur~ I 0 1 1eslrii;t gas supply (o intenul,A.i!Je customers. for e)aO'pe. under colder ~eather oonditiore when core custcmer3' demand incre..lSas. At th9 s..1.me time, ntsrruptible customers expect FB to pr~de a reason3t,le lwel cf 11:fiiLI~ sen·ic:::! lur llie 11~juiily ur u,~ yea1. U ~1ese i;uslum~ s wt:!1e t urlclileJ 0 1 1t:!sl.1ii;h:!LI too lrequen11y. they would seek alternate fuels that they m,y ·liew •• more reliable and FEI coud lose the customer arlC the load perm::¥1ent1y.

PRS was n:t determined a$ a feasible sclution Jor some laerals as the PRS would c.ause a rECuct1on m capGc1ty on those laterals 3ld would result 111 a year round requ1remen1 tor more frequent cwtaililen: of cus.10m;,r bads such that FEI not would n.o1 be providing a reawnable level of re[iable serYi~e. b scme in!:.til'IGES. a PRS 'A'Ould mean f [I could not nieet 5~/ needs tor torecastec' groo....th n tha reg on sel'VEC by t~a later...1. s. In those r,s.tances, 1-'RS could not be done wit'Y.ll.ft aJso requiring a pipetine exp,ansion to restore capacity on ti..'1l lateral d~ it could no longer har dle expected customer loads. Please reier to tie cJ.stomer in pacts oummori2cd in the rc<i'OOOC to CEC IA t.23.1 for aclcitional infom1ation.

X,2 H:n th! natural 933 S'}'3~M 1-oo reliru:-:tit}• ~ i'li t 'le af>.eie,j kltiemh ? rle33! 1:x1,~11n :a1, l 1.11c;,, 111:! r~1ln an : u l I!• : o :l~1b llly c:1:i• :!•

1-w~p..,.1~1::

r• has id.111ti1i9d tha fcl~ 1'Q: r;M;Oro9\1 in~·der:~ f'l\<Gi•; .ng r.le:na <I g» lroo'I its ~ er.nng hia.:¢1"; of h 2(0 T'3rm-.:s.icn L~!8J'318 ::OOt IT'llY h~ irr,JX1ct~ lheil' relisbititf . 69".,«'lc' ,-.tis.: is proviced in 1h'! t,lb'.e ~ :tN, FEI ha! nc.i loc31e,j fu11'.ec c!E-:1'11! .:,I t 'W re- iability in,:aeh for lhe3e u1:1:1• 1n l'Cx:i:

{01277043;1}

- 8 -

42.1 The CEC notes that leaks have not been identified since 1996. Please explain what

changes occurred that leaks have not been detected after this period.

43. Reference: Exhibit B-2, BCUC 1.14.3

y., ~, "'•1•""'· .. r:~,- .. , F,.,i.,. U,,i .. ~ b ,m. "· . ,,.1,1 .. f'l-o, "'-""' f111lu, ,, ,,~

HJ,'\> :,;-,~11-,~:ir l i) ll,ir;,tl l ~ l '- ,~ ) Ml rc ~t. ~10 ,u,m:~ HI':; ... :·-,r ( IIH $Ol I r e . tlt !SOl ' ,U., l ~ rt ! )$S>J ~ C! · ~ 1r r: ?1r.-.,..-e l YWIII HC.1m l 1",r.:> llr'II\ h 111(\ ', 11\lr'I~ r.f

i;,..,.., ,.,.,., ~ ..J~ O"l <:,,11 .. :1• 1,c;c,11 ,- 1 A1d l 1 •Nil 1, ,..,. 1Ml

11ui::li.11• ,:o•,:: 111 P.11lw.111 :..KJ ... mti,,:,, &:II.i t. Cu'lo:t\.'" :imJ r-i,t1~ 1X1n U1h " a:<11.f< fui:dl:r n, ubll.l Lo,· ,r 11w ·u, 11111, a i;,: 11 ....

1 !r.'7 <.r.:111~,llf n nr,1 :-w~-,· I r.--.~ • <;mr.u lll! tt r :-11:i,r:~ ~ F1f'~l :r,,~ tr.lh rr Wfl:'I rt-~"<'11'1':d tlt !SOl ' ,U., d i'Jl'l'l ~ t ~\ Ir :1. , ~ < r. ,:i, , re $: ... ~ 11ct \ 't ) ncl •: O l l> l ~ C Ir

llp!':1'1111,l r'l tr Tll!Ul\-":,1 pt( ,:\:/.1"1":

. .., F..-fol.l TI1itJ :.,:,1.; L .. :.1.r.. A 1u:.,IJ .,;i-:.l"' W\l :1 l .... i11U., l',,, HPS-S ;li;i.,ln, l;w-i,,d 111

!.ll~t>! ,, im~, in,e ~ nc11t-o1 • .,.i,y, N ) cr~·• n 1111~.-ed . 1,0 <1:n'JIQt',, -.:

l tll1<:! W Ill f 1, ~ u • " " ~ O pp,, w .. e _ kJ, :J Ill ll'! •J >, 1:1)' :,:J,

1 !'JR_\ r.int ~ n nr,1 :-111~ ,· FIU(lll -~ f;H:'11111,": :'ltNr' • .-, F Tl' I lll'rtfll t 'IIW ,r. t'f l\~ lr.,- lr,'\Ul'lf ~ .. n ,; .: 1 d,,.,,."J•' Lat,,11 :1! 188

l >a11!»1 11~ .... l,\Ur IJrl U~l l 1,1.,,_ ...,, IUl/l~ • • N\1 1lllalt!.-::,

.... :,;:,1)1) .. ',lal 11:111.111111 L<:'.1.i!. lblll ,.-111,1,, l llU"" i;,:.,.,i r ,:,

tlt !SOl ' ,U., l ~ rt !>$S>J ~ C!

'"" lO'll"ll/1/lp!\ 1 i-l,1Mt1n(ltrr,r I r.--.~ F <11!1t,••• t:lr.

I M F 'I ,:.~ .... ll l! f Ul!.,!W n .1111;,,n .,11 111 L<:'.1.i!. ts:. ~11 ~ 11!liJ11,,11 1,y• 1rm J l ,,:i\11a ~ :1,::) l \,:t/

""" :...i.r:-., 11 arm 1r ,rd » r:c; u ~•. Ll'-'. lli,4ro ) U(t ,• pi,,r, : ~.1~< )l)t ~

I M F 'I ,:.~ ~rim.-... ,~ s .. ..:t,i:.,11 uf ~•p,,h , Wll'll 11111 u ul

'"" I OS'J ll ~ !.)Cw,i,,S u ~-. ~ t d ~~(~ C d .1 ~n( ,")Ullr,t t -:.k ~- ~·

!.ll~t>! :«-rosic n it,c,·.ng

Fording System:

Fordinc; Lateral 168 and Lateral 219 Demand and Capacity Graph :';0,«o ~-------------------------------------------~

•O,«o

I )O,«o

f S n,eco

? ---~----------------------------------------------------· ~ 20,«:0

A

10,«:0

0

'"" ,,,.,. ,, ... 1,1100

- i:.-., IT ll'ldustrlal

••• '••Min. (lbstrvtd -,c Frt!SJf~

s.,oo S,lOC S<DC "" 4000

- lr.du~tri:,I film

---PR.Sea~..., • Mil.>imum O~erat nt Pressure

{01277043;1}

- 9 -

43.1 The CEC notes that the Fording Lateral System capacity just meets its load at maximum

operating pressure. Does FEI expect to increase the capacity of the lateral within the next

10 years? Please explain why or why not.

43.2 Please provide a discussion of FEI’s obligation to serve interruptible customers.

The Fording Lateml System is c.,mprised of the Ford ing La:eral 2 ·19 which is porny looped by the Fu1rJi 1~ Looµ 114 r10 111 l1 1c lt• p localK.t11 lu <.• tuc;.. ... liLll 1 ~•.tuU1 ur the 00111m.a1ily of Spa1Y,uur.l. ,\L Uu.; enc of the rorcing Lateral 2'19 north of Spaiwood. the rorcing Lateral 160 con:inues on

nortl1ward past the coo1111unit/ of Elkford :o ser, e large industrial mine site,s. The Fording ':.)'':ilt!rr1 f~d> C.~1l~ Sltitiu11s ~ 1vi11:-1 U1~ c,: 1nr11u11ili":'!·> ;_l( Sµ.:.Jl'\l\tTJr.xl umJ Elkfr..l1d t11 1tl ':ii:we1ul ft11!-I~ 1rnhl!·il11a l ~.!IC!> l11cal!!tl :11 VOi ll(lllS pom l i; Mlrn 1u Ii i-! ! 11:11911 1 DI ltu; ~i,'~•lc-111 I h e:: IHHJD 1rnhe;lual

crn;tomers (mostly 1111111119 sne, J have large t,rm InduscrIaI and Int,10TUp~ble loads and ara currently actively managed year round to kee;> the interrupl ible demand ,>ithin the avaiable capacity of the system. The c~acity grnph above show-; thot the installation of a f'RS o t the T1~rr;C,:111;.-1do Piµul[nc (TCPL) T:.;µ lo lhr.~ ~y•.;lum vvoultl :>!.!'1u1dv di111i11h;h Utt.: ~ 1p;::1r.:ily :.1v-.iil:.1bh.; tc1r th(;:",r: 1: >:1~,tin9 liir(Jt": w ,1110-11.; r:11r.t,:,m\;r:", ,~ • ."I m ~.1111 nt a 1-'HS irnp;"tl":111)0 th t: ~r.t,':l) h~hc:rl

operations of existing Fi:I custc,11er, , PRS was c,:,nsiderad no t viable for the Foroing Lateral 219 anc r ording La:eral 160.