Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection
Team:
Regulated company: Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Operating company: Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Province(s) / Territory(s):
Discipline(s):
Related events:
Rationale and scope:
Spread 9 - Line 3 Construction Inspection. This inspection evaluated Enbridge's implementation of environmental mitigation measures. The inspection occurred near the time of peak construction activities (nearly all crews/construction phases were occurring).
Compliance tool(s) used:
Facilities:
Facility Types
Life-cycle Phases
Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:
Regulatory instrument number(s):
Additional Project-specific requirements or conditions:
Observation 1 - IR#1 (Pre-inspection IR) TLU Mitigation Table
Date & time of visit: 2018-09-26 10:50
Discipline: Environmental Protection
Categories:
Facility:
Observations:
Table 11 in the Environmental Alignment Sheet package [PDF page 104 of 115] provides locations and TLU #s for the TLU Areas present at Spread 9 (and the other spreads). Mitigation measures to protect the TLU areas are not included in Table 11. Environment Note (EN) 19 [PDF Page 10 of 115] indicates that the mitigation measures to be implemented at TLU Areas are summarized in TLU Mitigation Tables which are prepared under separate cover. In order to verify compliance, the Inspection Team (NEB IOs and Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee Indigenous Monitors (IAMC IMs)) requires the mitigation measures prescribed for each TLU area to be identified. It is acknowledged that some of the information within the TLU Mitigation Tables may be protected under confidentiality agreements with the groups who shared TLU information.
Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)
Regulatory requirement:
Relevant section(s):
Company action required:
Request Could Enbridge share, with NEB IOs and the IAMC IMs, a listing or description of the mitigation measures that are required to protect each TLU area in Spread 9?
Due date: 2018-09-27
Date closed: 2018-12-19 Note: the date closed is the date that the inspector completed their review of the company corrective actions for adequacy and determined that no further actions are required.
Reason closed: Requirement met
Compliance achieved: Yes
Observation 2 - Discussions with Enbridge Indigenous Monitors and review of Indigenous Monitor Reports
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-01 08:00
Over the course of the inspection, conversations were held with Enbridge's Indigenous Monitors and Indigenous Liaison. The Inspection Team also reviewed several days' of Daily Indigenous Monitor Reports. Conversations included training received, a discussion of training that might be beneficial, daily reporting and collating of daily reports, TLU mitigation, and vehicles (see observation entitled IR 7 Enbridge Indigenous Monitor Vehicles). Over the course of the week, Enbridge confirmed that its Indigenous Monitors were provided with access to the TLU Mitigation Tables (prepared under separate cover per Environment Note 19/Table 11 in the Environmental Alignment Sheets packages), and that a meeting had been scheduled to include certain Enbridge head office staff, Enbridge Indigenous Liaisons, Enbridge Senior Indigenous Monitors and potentially others to discuss some of the items shared with the Inspection Team.
Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used
Observation 3 - Right of Way Construction
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-05 13:53
Locations:1027+000 Escarpment Area (see IR #4 Shallow subsurface hydrogeology at Agassiz escarpment)1028+100 Three lift soil site1081+500-800 Three lift soil site1081+0 Pipe unloading1033+700 Trench being pumpedGeneral Comments:
Observation 4 - Watercourses
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-04 11:27
Locations
Observation 5 - Document Review
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-04 15:11
The following documents were reviewed:Contaminated Sites List (Trace Associates)The contaminated site list, required per EPP Appendix D9 Contaminated soils discovery contingency Plan was reviewed. Discussed with Enbridge Reps that the contaminated site present on this spread had been remediated, with a goal of removing all contaminated material. Construction in this area is complete, pending soil sampling results for closure (SSKP 1003.2, MP724.6, NEB# REM-0296 - ~ 20 m length impacted, ~ 165 m3 est. soil volume).Equipment Cleaning LogsRandom sample of heavy equipment cleaning log verified cleaning times and location: NEB staff identified cleaning log samples from station at 1037.8: Unit number OR6087, OR7142 on 12 July 2018, OR7408 on 23 August 2018, SA5-038 on 23 August 2018, and OR 6403 on 23 August 2018. Reviewed logs for select equipment noted while on RoW: #7349 on 10 August 2018, and OR6867 on 9 August 2018.Material Safety Data SheetCentury White Armor All Weather Grade Thread CompoundEnbridge Indigenous Daily Monitoring Construction ReportsDaily reports for the months of August and September were obtained and reviewed at the request of IAMC Indigenous Monitors and NEB staff.Turbidity MonitoringResults of turbidity monitoring conducted at Deadhorse Creek that occurred over the period when the frac-out occurred.Reviewed email correspondence regarding field-level recommendation to not use automated data loggers for turbidity monitoring during HDD at Deadhorse Creek.
Observation 6 - CNC Hazardous Material Storage at HDD Site
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 11:45
At the drill site, there were a few areas where secondary containment required amendments:Drums containing oil (Rando HD Premium Oil) were inconsistently in secondary containment. New drums were observed in a shipping crate, two drums were in a secondary containment tray, where the capacity of the tray would not contain the volume of the oil within the barrels.
Compliance tool used: Corrected Non-compliance (CNC)
Enbridge amended the containers for hazardous materials (drums) by lining the wooden crates with a poly liner which would contain hazardous material (Rando oil) in the event of a spill or release.
Due date: 2018-10-05
Observation 7 - CNC Oily rag storage at HDD Drill Site
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 11:50
Oily rags (contaminated waste) was stored on site in a poly sheeting-lined wooden box. The wooden box was not labeled. Labelling of waste containers is a requirement of Enbridge’s Waste Management Plan (Section 5.6), however there are additional specific requirements for oily rag storage given their potential flammability (requirement noted below). The Inspection Team reviewed the Environmental Protection Plan for the HDD operations, prepared by Enbridge’s HDD contractor, Michels. The Michels site specific EPP indicates such hazardous materials, including oily rags are to be stored in a “Tervita” bin, and does not refer to the specific storage containers for oily rags required by Enbridge’s LP/MP Safety Manual. The IO acknowledges that Enbridge immediately applied a label to the bin based on the IO’s initial assessment at the site, however the bins where oily rags were being stored do not meet Enbridge’s requirements for fire prevention and protection. Enbridge’s requirements were identified by the IO at a later date and the IO raised the issue regarding the oily rag storage container for fire protection to Enbridge’s Rep after the inspection (by telephone and email October 16-18, 2018). During discussions and during email correspondence, Enbridge Rep noted that the oily rags as observed in the field were transported off-site daily, were of relatively small quantities, and were wetted down to reduce the risk of fire. The Enbridge Rep also provided documentation demonstrating that after the issue was raised, a meeting was held with the Spread 9 contractors on Friday 19 October 2018 to share LP/MP safety manual requirements for oily rag storage. The Michels HDD crew had de-mobed from Spread 9 on 12 October 2018, and that as of 24 October 2018, all other planned HDDs for this Spread (Rosenheim Drain, Buffalo Creek and the Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Creek) were completed by HDB. No outstanding HDDs remain.Given the small quantity of rags stored in the bin at the time of the observation, practices of daily transport off-site, and wetting down the rags, the NEB IO is of the view that the rag storage as observed was relatively low-risk. Although low-risk, the NEB IO is of the view that the requirements for oily rag storage as discussed in the contractor’s site-specific EPP (i.e. for the HDD work) was not in alignment with the requirements in Enbridge’s LP/MP safety Manual, specifically as related to oily rag storage. Enbridge provided their view to the IO:“The Enbridge LP/MP Safety Manual outlines standard requirements that Enbridge expects contractors to meet. If contractors choose to have more prescriptive requirements outlined in their EPP, Enbridge does not view this as misalignment, as long as they are meeting the standard set out by Enbridge.In regards to oily rags, they are not defined under the Hazardous Waste Regulations in Manitoba as hazardous substances or waste dangerous goods, rather oily rags are regulated under the National Fire Code (2015). Therefore oily rags are not required to be stored in a hazardous waste container.” The NEB IO is of the view that the requirement of a “Tervita” bin for oily rag storage does not meet Enbridge’s LP/MP Safety Manual Requirements for oily rag storage “in approved containers of not more than 5 gallon capacity with self-closing lids designed to relieve internal pressure when subjected to fire exposure.” As the work being done by this contractor is complete, and there are no other HDD’s on site where specific manuals might require adjustment, and the action taken to identify the requirement to the contractors on Spread 9, the NEB IO is of the view there are no additional corrective actions required, and is therefore this issue corrected.
Share Enbridge’s Oily Rag storage requirements with Spread 9 contractors.
Due date: 2018-10-22
Date closed: 2018-11-02 Note: the date closed is the date that the inspector completed their review of the company corrective actions for adequacy and determined that no further actions are required.
Observation 8 - IR #2 Confirmation of Re-stocking of Environmental Spill Response Unit
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 11:31
Following the drilling mud release at Deadhorse creek that occurred 28-September-2018, the Environmental Response Unit was in the process of being re-stocked by the drilling contractor. During the field inspection, it was observed (confirmed) that some of the required materials cited in the EPP and Drilling Site EPP were missing from the spill response container. The contractor confirmed they were in the process of re-stocking the supplies and that some of the required supplies were in-use or still in the field following the recent release. Given the timing of the inspection and the work in progress, the missing material noted at the time of inspection is not considered non-compliant, however confirmation that re-stocking had occurred as soon as possible was requested as drilling was in progress. The contractor indicated they re-stock the unit based on a checklist that identifies the required materials.
A copy of the checklist to be completed by the contractor as part of the Environmental Response Unit re-stocking was requested. It was provided later that day (October 2), and it was confirmed that materials not available had been ordered and were expected the week of October 10.
Due date: 2018-11-02
Date closed: 2018-11-30 Note: the date closed is the date that the inspector completed their review of the company corrective actions for adequacy and determined that no further actions are required.
Observation 9 - IR #3 Porta Potty on Topsoil
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 11:20
A porta-potty is present on topsoil in an area considered a moderate risk site for biosecurity. Enbridge indicated it plans to clean all equipment in contact with topsoil at this location. Confirmation that the required cleaning has been conducted is requested.
Provide the cleaning log demonstrating the Porta-potty was cleaned upon its removal from site.
Due date: 2018-10-12
Observation 10 - CNC Coating Clean-up HDD section of pipe north of Deadhorse Creek
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 14:05
At each joint along the section of pipe to be pulled under Deadhorse Creek, coating splatters ranging in size from small strings to 5 cm x 2 cm blobs were on the ground. By comparison, the mainline pipe also present in this area had no coating drippings observed on the ground. The EPP requires the use of tarps or other protection to prevent coating from landing on the ground. The coating work was not observed, and the NEB IO cannot confirm whether tarps were used during coating. The coating observed on the ground suggests that if tarps were in use, they were ineffective at catching coating drippings and therefore the intent of the EPP requirement was not met.
Enbridge will pick up/remove coating drippings from the ground in the area of the Deadhorse Creek pull section of pipe and will dispose of this waste appropriately.
Due date: 2018-10-03
Observation 11 - CNC Thornhill Coulee Clear Span Bridge - Sediment Control
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 14:38
Along the south side of the clearspan bridge installed at Thornhill Coulee, the geotextile along edges of the bridge had been ripped and was beginning to sag. At the time of inspection, work was not occurring at the creek. The crossing was anticipated to occur in the near future (the week of October 10).
Enbridge repaired the bridge on October 3 to the specifications in the EPP to prevent fine material from entering the watercourse.
Observation 12 - CNC Spill kit on Dozer OR6867 near Thornhill Coulee
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-02 15:08
A dozer was travelling near the clearspan bridge over Thornhill Coulee. A spill kit was not present on the equipment. The equipment operator indicated he had identified the lack of spill kit to his foreman 3-4 days ago. The IO notes that there is no requirement in the EPP for all equipment to carry spill kits, however the contractor’s Project Specific Safety Plan for this spread, cites ‘spill kits on units’ for many construction activities that require heavy equipment such as Grading and Site Preparation. Implementation of the contractor’s plan is required by the OPR. The dozer was equipped with a spill kit shortly after the concern was identified in the field. The Inspection Team reviewed the daily equipment checklist completed by the operator(s) for this piece of equipment and found no additional concerns. The cleaning log for this dozer was reviewed as part of the documentation review potion of this inspection. See observation titled “Documentation Review.”
The dozer (OR6867) will be supplied with spill kit.
Observation 13 - CNC – Small area of soil trespass near KP 1027
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-03 10:19
Near the top of the escarpment, a small amount of soil had spread approximately 6 inches beyond the staked RoW area.
Enbridge confirmed it would have the soil pile removed from the area outside the staked RoW using a shovel, and provide photographic evidence of the completed work.
Observation 14 - CNC Small open hole at 1038+500
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-03 12:00
Discipline: Safety Management
A small hole, approximately 6 inch diameter was present behind the soil piles. The hole is believed to be the result of hydrovac locating activities for buried facilities.
Enbridge backfilled the hole with subsoil and provided photographic confirmation of this.
Date closed: 2018-12-20 Note: the date closed is the date that the inspector completed their review of the company corrective actions for adequacy and determined that no further actions are required.
Observation 15 - IR #4 Shallow subsurface hydrogeology at Agassiz escarpment
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-03 10:30
Along the escarpment, the soil/rock that was present in a section of the backfilled trench appeared to be broken up, weakly lithified sandstone or siltstone. These observations suggest that the subsurface material was likely a weakly lithified or weakly cemented rock layer prior to trenching. Trenching activities would have easily broken up this soft sandstone/siltstone. The material, once backfilled was smaller pieces of sandstone or siltstone (variable size, but around 10 x 10 cm) whereas prior to pipeline installation, the material may have been a weakly cemented or soft fractured sandstone or siltstone. Given the alterations to the shallow geology as a result of pipeline installation, the IO notes a potential for alterations to the local hydrogeology, with one possible result being preferential shallow groundwater flow along the pipeline/trench down the escarpment. In the area of the escarpment, there are wetlands (marshes class I/II MB194, a195A).
RequestPlease respond to the following:
Due date: 2019-02-21
Date closed: 2019-02-05 Note: the date closed is the date that the inspector completed their review of the company corrective actions for adequacy and determined that no further actions are required.
Observation 16 - IR #5 Summary of concerns raised by elder and ongoing engagement
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-03 16:30
As part of this joint inspection, the NEB-IAMC Inspection team had the opportunity to meet with an Elder from Swan Lake First Nation on the afternoon of 3 October 2018. The following is a summary of the issues and concerns raised by the Elder.
Request
Observation 17 - IR #6 Cultural tours and incorporation of information gathered into the EPP
During a meeting with a local Elder, the Elder shared the importance of a particular area of the RoW (location not shared here to protect traditional knowledge shared with the Inspection team, location shared verbally with Enbridge). The Elder said that although his community did not conduct a Traditional Land Use study, he and others had participated in cultural tours/surveys with Enbridge and its consultant and had raised caution regarding this area. The pre-disturbance tour was held summer 2018. The area identified as a concern by the Elder is not indicated on the alignment sheets or on the accompanying Table 9 (Heritage Features along the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Route). Based on the TLU mitigation cited for this area (prepared and supplied to the Inspection Team under separate cover), it does not appear to relate to the concerns raised by the Elder. Through the course of the inspection, the Inspection team held discussions with Enbridge’s indigenous monitors, and reviewed the Monitors’ daily reports, which demonstrated that monitoring had occurred on a few occasions at this area.
Request Noting that the Elder’s community did not complete a TLU study, provide a discussion of whether and how information shared by the Elder(s) or other participants during the cultural tours/surveys shortly prior to construction were incorporated into the EPP, and into the project execution. In the response, include:
Observation 18 - IR #7 Enbridge Aboriginal Construction Monitor Vehicles
Date & time of visit: 2018-10-04 16:00
During conversations held on site with Enbridge’s Aboriginal Monitors, the monitors identified that the vehicles they had been provided to conduct their monitoring activities on the RoW are Ford Escapes (smaller SUV). They stated that these vehicles are challenging to operate on the RoW during adverse road conditions. Based on RoW conditions experienced by the Inspection team in a full sized 4x4 pickup, the Inspection Team agrees that smaller SUV-type vehicles would be challenging to drive on many sections of the RoW during wet, muddy conditions, or where the travel lane may have been rutted during previous wet weather. In order to conduct their monitoring activities, Enbridge Aboriginal Monitors often park the vehicles at intersections off the pipeline RoW and local roads and walk into the sites they intend to monitor. The Monitors, as described in the Aboriginal Monitoring plan, are to be imbedded construction monitors, who participate in all aspects of construction, including monitoring worksite activities and conditions. It is implicit in the goals of the Aboriginal Monitoring Plan and the Monitors’ responsibilities that accessing the RoW is required. Although the vehicles do not necessarily prevent them from accessing the RoW (as noted, in practice they walk into site), it is the IOs view that the vehicles may reduce the monitors’ ability to effectively access the RoW and complete their responsibilities. During on site discussions with Enbridge representatives, it was confirmed that provision of the vehicles is sub-contracted by the contractor who directly employs the monitors. Enbridge shared their expectation that contractors are expected to come to the job site with adequate tools to complete their scope of work.
Date closed: 2019-04-10 Note: the date closed is the date that the inspector completed their review of the company corrective actions for adequacy and determined that no further actions are required.
Identified non-compliances to company plans or procedures are non-compliances either to:
- the condition of an authorization document that requires the implementation of that plan or procedure; or
- the relevant section of the regulations that requires implementation of that plan or procedure including those sections that require implementation of plans or procedures as a part of a Program