INNOVATION November-December 2012

l et ter s

In my opinion, engineers are not sufficiently apparent in corporate boardrooms or senior governments. Yes, accountants and lawyers have their role, but complex technical systems and operations (say, as opposed to banks, investment houses, etc) need ongoing scrutiny also—where operations and engineering folks should be at the fore. The Enbridge Kalamazoo, Michigan, nightmare is a making of their own; see [US] National Transportation Safety Board reports. A lack of commitment to operational training by management and of management can lead to nightmares. Management often will fall back onto the old dodge such as, “We followed all the regulations, standards of the day.” Give me a break—systems start to become obsolete soon after start up. Further, leaders don’t follow standards, they set the standard. How many boards of directors actually listen to their own people? Listen to your personnel and they will tell you where to find the “areas of concern”; and then do something about it. Think of the Enbridge Kalamazoo, Michigan, oil spill, Ocean Ranger oil platform loss, spaceship Challenger disaster, Walkerton E-Coli fiasco, Ford Pinto bean counting scenario, etc. Would those incidents mentioned above have been avoided if senior management had listened? I’m hoping to see an operations safety epiphany by the Enbridge Board. I suggest that such an epiphany would be welcomed by the decision makers and the public, even at this late date.

Letters to the Editor containing your views on topics of interest or concern to members are encouraged. While we welcome your input, due to space limitations we may be unable to publish all letters received. Opinions expressed in letters to the Editor are not necessarily endorsed by APEGBC. Letters can be e-mailed to mlau@apeg.bc.ca.

Re: The Bargains We Make As representatives for the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) at the GVWD v NAP litigation, we read the subject article published in the September/October 2012 edition with interest. We found the article correct from a legal standpoint but are compelled to point out some of the engineering facts. The finding that the coating specifications were defective was based on a theory from an expert hired by NAP. GVWD’s evidence that the specifications had been successfully used since 1978 on over 160 km of steel water mains and sewer force mains, without the defects that the NAP supplied pipes contained, was deemed irrelevant. At trial, the GVWD proved the pipe was defective, but could not prove the cause. Without access to the production records which the pipe manufacturing plant in Korea accidently destroyed, we were unable to confirm where the defects originated. As part of the GVWD’s quality assurance procedures, a full-time third party inspector was present during the fabrication in Korea. However, the inspector was unable to detect the defects at the time of fabrication. As designers, we specified the material, thickness, and sequence of the coating system, but not the means or methods of application, which is the responsibility of the supplier. This coating system has been successfully supplied by major North American pipe suppliers for over three decades and has been used extensively throughout British Columbia. Metro Vancouver (aka GVWD) provides high quality drinking water at a reasonable cost for over two million customers and is very cautious in the preparation of its specifications. It uses proven products that have a long term service record and provide value to its customers. Metro Vancouver has always maintained a long-standing reputation within the industry for high quality coating systems. Paul Wilting PEng, Civil Mechanical Design Division Manager, Metro Vancouver Colin Meldrum PEng, Senior Engineer, Wastewater Treatment Engineering, Metro Vancouver Corporate Technical Officer – What’s that? Imagine a PEng in the Boardroom (unless in disguise) advising directors about (boring, sometimes costly) “operational areas of concern.”

Carl Shalansky PEng, North Vancouver v

Correction The article “ Preparing for Sea Level Rise in British Columbia: Science, Policy and Practice” in the September/ October 2012 issue of Innovation contained a misprint of Figure 1. The shaded area representing global sea level rise projections was shown to be beneath the recommended BC Sea Level Rise Curve, and the timescale on the horizontal axis was not depicted. The correct version is depicted here.

BCMOE 2010 SLR Policy Curve

5

Nov e m b e r /D e c e m b e r 2 012

i n n o v a t i o n