[All] Fw: Line 9 Leave to Open Response delayed almost a year.

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hi folks!
Finally got my written responses from the NEB regarding Line 9. Details below for your reference.
Lulu :0)
     ----- 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>; "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>; "pm at pm.gc.ca" <pm at pm.gc.ca>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca> 
 Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:30 PM
 Subject: Fw: Line 9 Leave to Open Response delayed almost a year.
   
Dear Hon. Prime Ministers and Ministers
I just wanted to relay the email below for your reference regarding the Line 9 Leave to Open process.  The NEB has provided me with written answers to the questions I have asked regarding the Line 9 Leave to Open process and I wanted to share the responses with you in good faith for your information. 
Thank you kindly for your time.
Louisette Lanteigne700 Star Flower Ave.Waterloo Ont.N2V 2L2

  

   ----- Forwarded Message -----
  From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
 To: Michael Benson <Michael.Benson at neb-one.gc.ca> 
 Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:10 PM
 Subject: Re: Line 9 Leave to Open Response delayed almost a year.
   
Thank you Mr. Benson
I did not see this email before. My server experiences many odd incidents of emails gone missing and server malfunction unfortunately. Just this week I had my server compromised severely to the point I had to rebuild it twice from scratch. My parents also told me they were not receiving emails I've sent to them including family photos etc. I don't know why these things happen but I do my best to simply work around it all. What else is there do?
Never the less I am very thankful you sent this to me and I do appreciate it very much. I will read through it carefully so I may understand the upcoming Leave to Open process better. 
Thank you so much Mr. Benson. You've been very kind. 
Yours in good faith,
Louisette Lanteigne700 Star Flower Ave.Waterloo Ont.N2V 2L2

    

   From: Michael Benson <Michael.Benson at neb-one.gc.ca>
 To: "butterflybluelu at rogers.com" <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> 
 Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:55 PM
 Subject: RE: Line 9 Leave to Open Response delayed almost a year.
   
#yiv2080968732 -- filtered {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2080968732 p.yiv2080968732MsoNormal, #yiv2080968732 li.yiv2080968732MsoNormal, #yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2080968732 a:link, #yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2080968732 a:visited, #yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2080968732 p.yiv2080968732MsoAcetate, #yiv2080968732 li.yiv2080968732MsoAcetate, #yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv2080968732 p.yiv2080968732MsoListParagraph, #yiv2080968732 li.yiv2080968732MsoListParagraph, #yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732BalloonTextChar {}#yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2080968732 .yiv2080968732MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732WordSection1 {}#yiv2080968732 filtered {}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:.25in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:.75in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:1.25in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:1.75in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:2.25in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:2.75in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:3.25in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:3.75in;}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin-left:4.25in;}#yiv2080968732 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv2080968732 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv2080968732 Hello Ms. Lanteigne,    I hope that you are doing well. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of an email that I send you on 24 July 2014. I have attached a copy of the email in case you forgot about it or in case you did not receive it for some reason (I know that email can be not entirely reliable). The attached email was my attempt to provide you with the relevant information in response to your questions.    Many months have passes since I sent you that email and several things have happened regarding the Enbridge Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project. As a result, I can now provide you with additional updated information in response to your questions.    1.      Enbridge has filed an Application for an Order Pursuant to Section 47 of the National Energy Board Act for Leave to Open Facilities Approved Pursuant to NEB Order XO-E101-003-2014. This Leave to Open Application is for the Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project. So, it includes the Reversal portion of Line 9B, and the capacity expansion of the entire Line 9. Please note that the Line 9A segment (Line 9 Reversal Phase I Project (Hearing # OH-005-2011)) is operating in reversed direction since January 2014 (see:https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=894532&objAction=browse&viewType=1). The current filing is the final Leave to Open Application so the Board will only grant leave if satisfied that the pipeline and facilities can be safely opened and or capacity expanded.  2.      The filing requirements for a Leave to Open Application are found in theGuide T of the NEB’s Filing Manual. These are general filing requirements that provide guidance to companies as to the type of information the Board would typically need to make a decision. The Board uses a risk-oriented approach to evaluate issues, considering the probability and consequences of potential issues, so general filing requirements may or may not be applicable or sufficient for all projects (for example, the leave to open for a previously operating pipeline).  3.      Enbridge has the right to prepare a Leave to Open Application that they believe is appropriate for their project. It is the responsibility of the company to make its case before the Board. The Board will review the Leave to Open Application and the Board will only grant leave if satisfied that the entire pipeline can be safely opened for transmission. 4.      You can find copies of Enbridge’s Leave to Open Application on the NEB’s website:https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=2679604&objAction=browse&viewType=1, andhttps://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=2679716&objAction=browse&viewType=1. This includes the results of the pressure tests that Enbridge has done. 5.      There is no formal public process associated with the Leave to Open Application. All of the correspondence related to the Leave to Open Application is posted on the NEB’s Regulatory Documents Index (https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=2432299&objAction=browse&viewType=1). 6.      Most conditions require proof (for example, a report or a plan) to be provided by the company that the condition has been achieved. The Board assesses that proof and may require additional information from a company if the proof is not sufficient. 7.      Conditions that are filed with the Board “for approval” will get a response letter from the Board to the Company (with a copy on the public record) either asking for additional information (refer to question #6) or indicating the Board’s approval of the submission. All submissions related to the Enbridge Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project can be found here:https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objId=2432299&objAction=browse&viewType=1. Conditions that are filed with the Board that are not “for approval” will not get a response letter. 8.      If a condition is not met then the company cannot proceed to the “next stage”.  For example, on theEnbridge Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project conditions 4 through 7 had to be met prior to construction, andconditions 9 through 20 had to be met before Enbridge could request leave to open. 9.      The NEB is responsible for enforcing NEB rulings. 10.  If someone feels a condition has not been met, then they can bring that to the attention of the Board. The NEB will diligently review/assess the matter and then enforce regulatory requirements (if required) to obtain compliance, deter future non-compliance, and prevent harm by using the most appropriate tool or tools available.    If you are interested in the topic of hydrotesting, I recommend that you look at the NEB’s Reasons for Decision (page 49):    Hydrotesting    The Board notes the recommendation of Équiterre, based on the Accufacts Report, and of other Participants to require Enbridge to conduct hydrotesting of Line 9 prior to bringing the Project into service. However, the Board acknowledges Enbridge’s statement that there may be potential detrimental effects of hydrotesting the existing pipeline, including the potential to induce pressure reversal and cracks, or to grow cracks that do not fail during the test but may continue to grow in-service after and potentially as a result of hydrotesting. In addition, in its Table 3, the Accufacts Report notes that when ILI technology is proven it can reveal more about the condition of pipe than hydrotesting would, and that hydrotesting may not effectively identify some features, such as girth welds defects.    For these reasons, the Board elects to make no order at this time regarding hydrotesting of the pre-existing portions of Line 9. However, the Board has imposed Condition 11 which requires Enbridge to provide its overall hydrotesting program in order for the Board to further understand Enbridge’s corporate approach to hydrotesting. After receiving the Updated EA and Enbridge’s filings in respect of completed repairs and ILI tool reliability, and after considering Enbridge’s corporate policies and approach with respect to hydrotesting, the Board may revisit the issue of requiring hydrotesting prior to granting LTO.    The Board denies Enbridge’s request for an exemption from section 47 of the NEB Act. Enbridge must apply for LTO with hydrotesting results for new facilities before it can bring the Project into service. As explained above, the Board will consider Enbridge’s response toConditions 9, 10 and 11, to determine whether it ought to require Enbridge to perform hydrotesting on existing portions of Line 9. The Board has also imposed a number of additional conditions with which Enbridge must comply prior to applying for LTO.       As always, feel free to follow-up with me directly if you have any additional questions. 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.    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: February 10, 2015 9:13 PM
To: Michael Benson; Secretary; kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org; ahorwath-co at ndp.on.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; pm at pm.gc.ca
Subject: Line 9 Leave to Open Response delayed almost a year.    Dear Hon. Prime Minster and Ministers as well as National Board Representatives.     Almost a year has passed since I asked National Energy Board staff to answer basic procedural questions regarding Enbridge Line 9 and to date those questions have yet to be answered.  I wanted to learn more about the Leave to  Open process and now that Enbridge has already applied I am eager to get the responses. Time is of the essence.     Below is the email I sent to Mr. Michael Benson on  March 13 2014. I will relay the fact that he did send me several  emails stating he would follow up and he invited me to speak with him on the phone but I requested writing as my preferred method of communication. To date I have yet to get a written response. I wrote several times requesting this data.     These are procedural questions. It does not involve any disclosure of personal information or confidential materials. It is beyond me why there is such a huge delay on this issue but again I will, in good faith present the same questions to  everyone in hopes that I will finally get the answers.     Thank you kindly for your time.    Louisette Lanteigne 700 Star Flower Ave Waterloo Ont. N2V 2L2                 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 the 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                    #yiv2080968732 -- filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv2080968732 p.yiv2080968732MsoNormal, #yiv2080968732 li.yiv2080968732MsoNormal, #yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv2080968732 a:link, #yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2080968732 a:visited, #yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2080968732 p.yiv2080968732MsoListParagraph, #yiv2080968732 li.yiv2080968732MsoListParagraph, #yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv2080968732 span.yiv2080968732EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv2080968732 .yiv2080968732MsoChpDefault {}#yiv2080968732 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2080968732 div.yiv2080968732WordSection1 {}#yiv2080968732 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’scompliance 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    

   

   

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20150217/10905db1/attachment.html>