Click here to read Letter from NEB denying CPE official intervenor status for Trans Mountain Pipeline Project [hr]
Read CPE response to denial below:
Friday, April 11, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
As spokesperson for CPE (Concerned Professional Engineers) I would like to appeal the decision of the NEB to decide against including our group as Intervenors.
Our group is composed of civil engineers and a professor of engineering from the University of British Columbia. We are all professionals who have experience with natural resource projects that include pipeline and oil platform construction. As such, we feel that our expertise would be helpful in the examination of the Trans Mountain Expansion, to determine what the impacts of such a project could be.
While we are not opposed to economic development using natural resources, we are concerned about the environmental and safety issues that arise from certain proposed projects. We would be prepared to perform our own risk analysis based on the list of issues provided by the Board.
Specifically, I refer to the following in the list of issues:
1. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that occur.
2. The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the proposed project.
3. The suitability of the design of the proposed project.
4. Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the project.
5. Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention.
We have conducted a very thorough analysis of the proposed Northern Gateway Project for Kitimat over the past two years, by first writing a Letter of Comment, then participating as Intervenors with CJ Peters and questioning Northern Gateway on marine aspects in Prince Rupert in March, 2013, and concluding with final arguments in Terrace in June of 2013.
We are prepared to use our time and resources to do the same for TMX. Our thoughts are for the welfare of British Columbians in both the economic and environmental sense.
Concerned Professional Engineers
Letter of Appeal from CPE to Ruling 7, May 2, 2014
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC
Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project
Hearing Order OH-001-2014
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF RULING NO. 7
CONCERNED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
Concise Statement of the Facts
On April 2, 2014 the National Energy Board made its Ruling on Participation
which denied Concerned Professional Engineers participation in the Trans Mountain Expansion Hearings.
On April 11, 2014 Mr. Brian Gunn sent a letter to the Board containing an appeal their ruling.
On April 17, 2014 the Board issued Ruling No.7 granting CPE commenter status.
CPE thanks the Board for advising that they made a mistake denying intervenor status in the original ruling and granting CPE commenter status in ruling No 7.
Grounds to raise doubt as to Correctness of Ruling
However, as professional engineers with more than 100 years of experience in design and operations of large projects such as arctic drilling structures, offshore supply vessels, double hull tanker barges, oil spill cleanup equipment, tugboats, workboats, and marine operations support, CPE has relevant expertise in reviewing the marine risk analysis put forward by consultant Det Norske Veritas filed as part of Trans Mountain’s Application. We believe we have demonstrated this expertise acting as an Intervenor with C.J. Peter Associates on the Northern Gateway project. Our purpose is to do a fair critique of the marine aspect of the Application in order to ensure the export of oil products delivered through the Trans Mountain Expansion is as safe as possible.
Nature of the Prejudice Arising from the Ruling
Section 55.2 of the National Energy Board Act 2012 states the Board “may consider the representations of any person who, in its opinion, has relevant information or expertise.”
Grating commenter status only to CPE would result in prejudice by preventing them from testing the evidence filed in the Application. CPE have demonstrated through their work and experience that they do not have a bias against the movement of petroleum products by pipeline or tanker, as long as the product can be safely cleaned up in the event of a spill and that the route is carefully chosen to minimize the risk of spills. Nor do they have a bias against the export of Canadian resources overseas. CPE believe they deserve Intervenor and not commenter status.
In Ruling No.7, the Board stated that it had made an administrative error in denying CPE participation. Please advise us what that error was.
Concerned Professional Engineers request that they be granted Intervenor status in the Trans Mountain Expansion Project review.