[All] Fw: Questions about the Enbridge Line 9B Leave to Open Process

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hi folks

FYI

Lulu 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca" <ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca>; "Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca" <Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca>; "thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca" <thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca>; "stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca" <stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca>; "linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca" <linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca>; "jbradley.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <jbradley.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "jspears at thestar.ca" <jspears at thestar.ca>; "gmercer at therecord.com" <gmercer at therecord.com>; "jgerretsen.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <jgerretsen.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "pm at pm.gc.ca" <pm at pm.gc.ca>; "Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca" <Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca>; "catherinefife at on.ndp.ca" <catherinefife at on.ndp.ca> 
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 2:09:04 PM
Subject: Fw: Questions about the Enbridge Line 9B Leave to Open Process
 






Hello everyone.

On March 13, 2014 I wrote an email to the National Energy Board asking specific questions regarding the Leave to Open process required for Enbridge Line 9 pipeline. The NEB ruling for Line 9 mandates that this process must be done so I provided a list of questions to find out if there was the opportunity for public participation etc. A copy of the email which I sent is included at the end of this email for your reference.

Several emails were exchanged over the past few months and offers were made to discuss the concerns by phone which I declined. I specified that I would like the response in writing. 

On July 24, 2014 I received this email from the NEB which I would like to share with you. Again they make offers to speak on the phone but they have, for the first time, provided some written responses to help address the questions I presented. Knowing of your interest in the Line 9 process I felt it would be beneficial to share that data with you all as well. 

Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2

 





----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Michael Benson <Michael.Benson at neb-one.gc.ca>
To: "butterflybluelu at rogers.com" <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:41:25 PM
Subject: Questions about the Enbridge Line 9B Leave to Open Process
 


 
Hello Ms. Lanteigne,
 
I hope that you are doing well and that you are enjoying a nice summer in Ontario. I would first of all like to extend another offer to you to talk to you over the phone about your concerns. As a Process Advisor, I am able to talk to you about the different NEB processes and the options that you have to participate in these different processes. I believe that if we have a general discussion about the NEB’s post-decision processes, this will allow you to identify any specific outstanding concerns. And of course, I would be more than happy to help you submit your specific outstanding concerns to the NEB in such a manner that you will be provided with a written response.
 
Many of your concerns are related to compliance verification activities and enforcement actions. In order to provide you with a written response (as you have insisted), here is my best attempt to provide you with the relevant information.
 
Compliance Verification Activities (CVA)
 
The NEB monitors compliance through risk-informed verification activities, including concerns identified through the investigation of incidents and from the public. Legal requirements include those which are set out in Acts, regulations, standards adopted into regulation, directives and orders of the Board, and conditions of certificates and orders. The Board uses CVAs to verify that all known non-compliances have been corrected and to gather new information about the state of compliance in a specific area of a company’s operations or to investigate whether the NEB’s regulated companies are taking the appropriate preventive or corrective actions. The Board’s suite of CVAs includes:
·         inspections (of facilities under construction or in operation); 
·         evaluations of emergency exercises; 
·         reviews of emergency procedures manuals; 
·         compliance meetings (to check the progress of programs or corrective actions); 
·         audits; and 
·         reviews of post-construction monitoring reports.
 
In order to improve access to safety and environmental information to all Canadians, the NEB proactively posts information on its CVAs with the goal of providing all relevant information, in a manner that is clear and accessible. Filings from Enbridge related to condition compliance and the leave to open application will be posted on the NEB’s regulatory document index, under “Board Order and Compliance”.
 
Enforcement Actions
 
The Board’s objective for enforcement actions is to achieve compliance as quickly and as effectively as possible. Achieving compliance reduces hazards and protects the safety of workers and the public, the environment and property. The NEB’s guiding enforcement policy statement is the following:
·         The NEB will enforce regulatory requirements to obtain compliance, deter future non-compliance, and prevent harm by using the most appropriate tool or tools available.
 
NEB enforcement tools are not mutually exclusive and more than one measure may be employed to obtain compliance, deter future non-compliance or to prevent incidents/accidents. When safety, security or environmental protection issues are identified, the NEB will use the most appropriate and efficient enforcement tool, including issuance of a Notice of Non-Compliance, Inspection Officer Order, Safety Order, Administrative Monetary Penalties, or taking the matter forward for Prosecution, or Revoking the Authorization.
 
When a violation or an unsafe condition is detected, the NEB expects immediate correction and an assessment of the root causes in order to prevent the issue from happening again. Failure to address a violation or unsafe condition can result in further NEB sanction, such as suspension of operation. The NEB publishes enforcement documents on its website. 
 
 
I hope that provides you with a relevant information on the NEB’s compliance verification activities and enforcement actions. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me at the Board’s toll free number 1-800-899-1265. I would be happy to talk with you again and provide you with some advice about your options to participate in ongoing NEB processes.
 
Regards,
 
Michael Benson
Process Advisor | Conseiller en Processus
  Telephone: (403) 299-1992
  Toll Free: 1-800-899-1265
  Email: michael.benson at neb-one.gc.ca 
National Energy Board | 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary AB T2R 0A8
Office national de l’énergie | 517, Dixième Avenue S.-O Calgary (Alberta) T2R 0A8
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
 

From: Louisette Lanteigne [mailto:butterflybluelu at rogers.com] 
Sent: March 13, 2014 1:46 PM
To: Michael Benson; kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org; ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca; justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca; Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca; thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca;stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca; linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca; jbradley.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org; jspears at thestar.ca; gmercer at therecord.com; jgerretsen.mpp at liberal.ola.org;pm at pm.gc.ca; Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca; catherinefife at on.ndp.ca
Subject: Question about Line 9 ruling and Leave to Open
 
Hello Mr. Benson
 
It's delegate Louisette Lanteigne of the Line 9 hearing. I read through the ruling and I'm trying to better understand what it means. The NEB ruling mandates a new application is needed for the Leave to Open process, that a request to bypass this was denied. I went to the NEB website and it sets the following conditions to secure Leave to Open  such as
 
·         confirmation that the test pressure did not fall below 97.5 percent of the minimum strength test pressure; and
·         details regarding any unsuccessful pressure tests, including the cause of the test failure.
·         a statement that hydrostatic testing was completed and found acceptable;
In light of this I have the following questions.
 
1. Is the Leave To Open application applicable to only to Line phase B or is it required to review the totality of Line 9 from Sarnia to Westover?  
 
2. How is the scope of the test area determined and by whom? Is the criteria defined in a policy or is it based on discretionary powers? 
 
3. Does Enbridge have the procedural ability to request a limited scope of these tests? 
 
4. Can the public at any point view the findings of the pressure tests both successful and unsuccessful? If so what protocol is used to access this data? 
 
5. Is there any public input during the application phase of Leave to Open? If so I would like to be notified of this process. 
 
 
Also in regards to the agreed upon conditions as outlined in the Line 9 ruling beyond the Leave to Open issue 
 
6. What measures are in place to secure that the conditions have been reasonably met?  Is there a sign off point or submission of documented proof required to show these tasks have been completed?  
 
7. If there is written proof required to show that conditions have been reasonably met, what protocol can the public use to review that data? 
 
8. When it comes to NEB rulings, if the conditions are not met, what are the consequences of non compliance? 
 
9. What agencies are responsible to enforce NEB rulings? 
 
10. If the public witnesses non compliance to an NEB ruling, is it up to them to pay out of pocket to raise matters in the courts or is it the responsibility of the NEB to facilitate corrective action and/or charges? 
 
I ask these questions because I secured concessions at the Ontario Municipal Board in the past, witnessed violations and was told if I wanted to seek contempt charges it was up to me to pay out of pocket to raise the concern in the courts. After paying over $20,000 for the OMB process I could not reasonably afford to do it so I was left watching the damages get done as this firm got away with it without any adverse consequences. 
 
I pray that the NEB does not have the same procedural weakness as the Ontario Municipal Board to rely on concerned citizens to enforce these very important rulings. Canada deserves better than that to protect our national interest, communities and water supplies. 
 
I have taken the time to forward this to others who know of my concerns who may also share the desire to hear the response of these same questions. 
 
Please respond to all of us in writing in a timely manner. 
 
Thank you kindly for your time. 
 
Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo ON
N2V 2L2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20140808/697f054a/attachment.html>