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:
Environmental inspection of construction activities on Spread 7 of the Line 3 Replacement Program. The spread is located in southern Manitoba, and extends from near Cromer, MB, towards Wawanesa, MB. A majority of this spread is located in an area with a relatively high groundwater table, with high hydraulic conductivity, owing to the sandy nature of the shallow subsurface. This inspection focused on verifying Enbridge compliance with mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Plan. Specific attention was given to heritage resource protection as well as to dewatering activities and sites given the environmental context.
Compliance tool(s) used:
Facilities:
Facility Types
Life-cycle Phases
Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:
Regulatory instrument number(s):
Observation 1 - Pre-Inspection Information Request
Date & time of visit: 2018-11-26 12:37
Discipline: Environmental Protection
Categories:
Facility:
Observations:
On 26 November 2018, a pre-inspection information request was made with a deadline of 29 November 2018.
Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)
Regulatory requirement:
Relevant section(s):
Company action required:
In preparation for the inspection, please provide the following documentation:
Due date: 2018-11-29
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.
Reason closed: Requirement met
Compliance achieved: Yes
Observation 2 - Construction Yard
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-04 15:20
Inspected:
Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used
Observation 3 - General RoW Observations
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-04 08:00
General RoW condition- RoW was snow/ice covered- Topsoil stripping was complete at all areas visited- Through the course of the inspection, no garbage or litter concerns were observed on the RoW.- No spills, leaks or drips were observed.- Soil stockpiles observed labelled with stakes- Signage, marking environmental and Heritage Resource (HER) features was in place where required. - Observed the"buffer crumb" work near HER-156. Backhoe operator was observed to be proficient at separating the stockpiled trench spoil material from where is was stockpiled on topsoil with the green tackifier separation layer, and on geotextile. No scalping of topsoil layer was observed. Enbridge representatives indicated that additional sweeping of trench spoil from topsoil would occur with a sweeper attachment on a skidsteer.Other Dewatering Sites- On the first day of the RoW inspection, the Inspection team noted issues at two dewatering sites. See observation "CNC Dewatering and Dewatering Sites". - A large portion of this RoW (from kickoff to approx KP 870) has a very high groundwater table, requiring pumping of water from the trench to enable pipeline lower-in, welding and tie-ins. - Different types of dewatering structures were observed. On this spread, Enbridge had determined that it would implement double containment on all dewatering structures (e.g. filter bag, plus another structure, such as a pig pen). Discussed that each different type of pig pen has its benefits: wood frame with geotextile, metal frame with geotextile, and also floc tank in use near Road 12. All structures observed were also implementing a filter bag, either within the pig pen, or at the discharge end of water pumped from the floc tank, resulting in double filtration of discharging water. Double filtration of water is required by the EPP within 50 m of wetlands, but not in other areas, therefore additional mitigation is being applied in some cases. - Visited dewater sites along Rd 26 (near KP 836) active and dismantled (PS296), and active dewater sites near Rd 3. No concerns were noted- West of Road 12 there was a sand-point dewatering site installed near the HDD work. Shallow groundwater is being removed from the area using sand-point shallow well installation. Enbridge representatives stated that this work (wells and discharge) is approved by the province. Water is being discharged (PS036) through a filter bag in the bar ditch. Iron precipitation is apparent, but no sediment deposition was observed. - East of Road 12, another sand-point well installation was present, with additonal wells being installed. At this location, the water was being pumped into a floc tank to allow settling of any sediments, then pumped through a filter bag at the discharge point. Again here, iron precipitation (staining) was observed, but no sedimentation or erosion issues were noted. Heritage Resources (HER)- Met with Enbridge's Lead Archeologist for the project who provided an overview of the known HER sites on the project- Reviewed a selection of archeologists' daily reports for the project from October and November for HER-164, 165, 166, 180, 181.- Visited sites HER 164, 165, 166, 180, 181 near KP 907. Construction was not active at these locations. No issues noted.- Visited HER 156, near KP 842, where stockpiled trench material was being removed from geotextile and tackifier separation layer and backfilled into the trench. Confirmed that an archeologist was on site during this work. The archeologist noted that she is listed on the Provincial permit for this site. No issues regarding heritage resource protection were noted.Indigenous Monitoring Program- Met with Enbridge's indigenous monitors and the Indigenous Liaison for this spread.- Monitors shared generally positive comments regarding the project, and their role within the project.- Monitors shared that when they raise concerns or issues, these are addressed by Enbridge.- Monitors find they are integrated as part of the inspection team, and do not have trouble accessing the sites they want to visit.- Monitors shared that they had received training on the Environmental Alignment Sheets, and that additional training on soils would be helpful- The Inspection Team observed the Monitors in the field doing their work at multiple locations during the course of this inspection.Biosecurity- The Inspection Team washed their vehicle as required when arriving to site as per the Biosecurity Plan.- Met with the contractor's biosecurity monitor and discussed measures being implemented at a moderate risk site, inspection participants' boots were bleached upon exiting the site.
Observation 4 - CNC Dewatering and Dewatering Sites
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-05 11:30
On the first day of the RoW inspection, the team visited two dewatering areas and sites:KP848.5 Dewater site #171 (11:30 AM)- Inactive "pig pen" within 50 m of a wetland.- Sediment bag contained within the wood-framed geotextile-lined pig pen structure- Evidence that the pig pen had failed (broken) and sediment-laden water had been released from the pen. - There was evidence of sediment migration and deposition north of the structure, however area affected was not determined for certain due to snow cover.- Requested documentation that demonstated how Enbridge is logging these issues for follow-up repair/clean-up and monitoring. On 5 December 2018 Enbridge reps stated that this location had not been logged or listed (See listing of Corrective Actions taken by Enbridge)KP 847+400 Dewater site #117 (12:10 PM)- Active pig pen site, pumping water (dewatering) from ditch in preparation for pipeline lower-in- Filter bag inside an approximately 20' x 10' wood framed, geotextile lined pig pen- Within 50 m of a wetland- On the West side, the geotextile liner was not containing the water/sediment. Breach was where the two ends of the geotextile come together, and water was escaping freely.- No workers were in the immediate vicinity to monitor the dewatering activity, rather they were at the site a few hundred meters to the west at the active tie-in location.- at 12:30 PM, the team confimed the pump was turned off.(See listing of Corrective Actions taken by Enbridge)At the two dewatering sites listed above, the Inspection Team identified non-compliance regarding the monitoring the dewatering sites, both during active dewatering (KP847+400), and after a breach of the structure had occured (KP 848+500).
Compliance tool used: Corrected Non-compliance (CNC)
The corrective actions described below were identified by Enbridge the evening of 12 December 2018 and communicated to the Inspection team the morning of 13 December 2018:- conduct a field and paper-based inventory of all dewatering sites on the spread. Identify and record all dewatering sites where containment has failed - Document dewatering sites using the Fulcrum app, where the extent of impacts can be described and photos taken and stored- Meet with Environmental Inspection Team to share the issue and corrective actions taken (meeting held AM 13 December 2018). - Communicate to the on-site Inspection Team, including EI's and Enbridge Craft Inspectors that it is everyone's responsibility to monitor the dewatering sites and activities, raise the focus on these areas (communicated during daily Inspectors' meeting 13 December 2018, and communicated to contractor's senior management who were on site at the time). - Conduct additional training with construction crews regarding design of the pig pen containment structures (e.g. larger bays, install ratchet straps to hold wood frame together, trial of metal-framed structures)- Contractor ordered additional Floc Tanks (observed new tank recently arrived to site afternoon of 13 December 2018).- Monitor/inspect dewatering sites in inventory through spring preparedness monitoring, during post-final cleanup walkthrough with contractor, and during post-construction monitoring. - Remove sediment at KP 848.5 (dewater site # 171 (photo confirming clean-up provided 14 December 2018).
Due date: 2018-12-07
Date closed: 2018-12-07 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 5 - IR Cribbing and Skidding
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-05 13:00
Discipline: Safety Management
Near Road 29 a straight two joint section of pipe was observed on three skid piles stacked approximately 24" high. The skids were stacked such that there was a crotch on only the west side skid stack. NEB inspectors discussed this observation with Enbridge safety personnel. During discussions with NEB safety personnel, the Inspection Team was made aware that there had been an incident on this project on 22 October 2018 where a two joint section of pipe had rolled off of skid piles that had similarly been configured with only one crotch. Enbridge safety represtentative confirmed that Enbridge does have guidance for this task - the MP Safe Cribbing and Skidding Guidelines, but noted that at this point, this is not considered a requirement and rather it remains as guidance. The safety representative stated that he had observed the site, and did not believe it appeared unsafe (ground was level), however he would raise the concern identified by the Inspection Team to the contractor, and ask them to install another crotch in the cribbing. A copy of the Safety Bulletin issued later in October 2018 following the incident noted above was shared with Inspectors. The bulletin, titled "Near Miss- Pipe Section Rolls off Cribbing" highlights the benefits of following the Safe Cribbing & Skidding Guidelines. The bulletin notes "Proven Protection [...] Prior to introducing this guideline in 2015, Canadian Projects experienced a multitude of similar events. By implementing and following it, uncontrolled pipe movement was prevented and nearly eliminated." Enbridge provided confirmation during the closing meeting that the cribs stacks had been amended such that a second crotch was installed at the east side of the two joint section of pipe in question.Although the crib stacks observed at Road 29 have been revisited, NEB inspectors require additional information.
Given that an incident relating to improper cribbing and skidding of pipe had recently occurred which resulted in a safety bulletin being issued, and NEB Inspection Officers observed a similar occurrence after its issuance - please provide a response to the following question:
Due date: 2019-01-21
Date closed: 2019-04-16 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 6 - CNC Bore Bay near Road 3 KP 810+800
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-06 15:34
On the north side of the road 3 crossing, a bore bay for the road bore had been excavated. Soil in this area is extremely sandy and unstable once excavated. Two walled trench boxes walls had been installed in the excavation using piles. The trench box would protect the east and west sides of the excavation from sloughing in, however the south side (the side the pilot hole and bore will come through) is open. the excavation on that south side had slouged in, and the excavation was undercut from the surface by about 5' to 10'. There was a fence around the excavation, however it was not far enough back to protect workers in case the undercut excavation were to collapse.Immediately upon being identified by the IO, the inspection team and Enbridge reps retreated from the area and the fence was moved back from the excavation to allow clearance from the undercut area.
Enbridge will move the fence outward from the excavation on the south side such that personnel is restricted from walking or accessing the area that is undercut and could collapse.
Due date: 2018-12-06
Date closed: 2018-12-06 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 7 - CNC Fuel tank near Road 12 Dewatering Site
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-06 16:22
- A 100 gallon fuel tank containing gasoline was observed on site within a wetland area with shallow groundwater and active dewatering activities.- Fuel tank was in a small secondary containment tray, whose footprint was about 6 inches wider than the base of the tank, and edges were approximately 5 inches tall. There was no indication whether the tank itself was double walled (e.g. built-in secondary containment). The tray's volume would not contain the full volume of the tank if the tank failed.-There was no spill kit observed on/at the tank.
Enbridge will install a containment tray that would contain the maximum volume of fuel that could be stored within the fuel tank (e.g. 110% capacity), and station a spill kit near the fuel tank.
Date closed: 2018-12-17 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 - Contaminated sites water pump off
Date & time of visit: 2018-12-06 13:10
Contaminated Site encoutered by the project near KP 841- Previously unidentified (unexpected) contamination was encountered by project work earlier during construction near KP841- NEB IOs met with the contractor environmental consultant who was on site and discussed the assessment and remediation work that had occurred to date.- Contaminated soil was excavated and stockpiled separately on a poly liner. NEB IOs observed that the the poly liner was appropriately wrapped around and over the soil to prevent potential migration of contaminants. Enbridge plans to dispose the soil at an appropriate waste handling facility.- Closure samples were not obtained from excavation walls at the time of the excavation, Enbridge reps stated that a follow-up Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment would occur in this area to determine if all contaminated material was excavated.- During discussion NEB IOs discovered that during the remedial excavation, like in other areas of this spread, dewatering from the excavation was required. Water was pumped from the excavation, onto the RoW. The Inspection Team understands that water sampling from the excavation (consultant noted worst case was sampled) and from the pump discharge occurred, however laboratory results were obtained after the pump-off had occurred. In this case, the Enbridge reprsentative stated that both the water sampled from the excavation and at the discharge end of the pump showed non-detectable levels of hydrocarbons. The inspection team understands that water was pumped off prior to confirming it was clean, and that water was not pumped into a tank. - NEB inspectors confirmed that a Notification of Contamination was filed by Enbridge on 18 December 2018.NEB IOs require additional information to verify compliance.
NEB Inspectors understand that:- per section 22 of the Contaminated Soils Discovery Contingency Plan (Contingency Plan), the water in the excavation near KP 841 was considered potentially contaminated due to the presence of a sheen. - per section 24 of the Contingency Plan, samples of the water were obtained (from the excavation and at the point of discharge), and were sent to the laboratory. - The potentially contaminated water was not left in the trench while waiting for the results of the laboratory analysis, and the potentially contaminated water was not removed to an onsite tank.Provide a response to the following:1) Results of laboratory analysis of the water and applicable regulatory criteria that would guide appropriate mitigation or disposal options, and Enbridge's assessment of those results.2) A description of the decision making criteria that guides whether it is "feasible" to leave contaminated water in the trench while waiting for the results of laboratory analyses.3) A description of the decision making criteria that guides whether remval of the water to an onsite tank would be considered "necessary" while waiting for the results of laboratory analyses.
Date closed: 2019-04-15 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 - NNC - Contaminated sites water pump off
NEB IOs reviewed the actions taken by Enbridge at the contaminated site discovered near KP 841, and IOs are of the view that measures implemented by Enbridge were non-compliant with the L3R Contaminated Soils Discovery Contingency Plan (CSDCP). Refer to the Inspector Analysis section of IR - Contaminated sites water pump-off.
Compliance tool used: Notice of Non-compliance (NNC)
Enbridge will develop and implement a plan to prevent future discharge of potentially contaminated water. The plan will identify any needed amendments to procedures or communications to crews that clarify requirements of the L3R EPP Appendix D.9 Contaminated Soil Discovery Contingency Plan (CSDCP).Enbridge will summarize the corrective actions taken and any communications made in accordance with the plan by 24 June 2019. If there are longer term correcitve actions identified in the plan, Enbridge will provide a summary of those actions and dates by which they will be implemented.
Due date: 2019-06-24
Date closed: 2019-06-17 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 10 - IR 2 - Contaminated sites water pump off
Date & time of visit: 2019-05-08 16:00
Following issuance of the NNC - Contaminated sites water pump off, Enbridge provided a Supplemental Response to the IR that was sent to Enbridge and a Response received to prior to the IOs issuing the NNC (IR - Contaminated sites water pump off). Following the IOs review of the supplemental response, additional information was requested by the IOs:Observation/PreambleIn its addendum to the earlier response to information request, Enbridge provided new information and details regarding the actions undertaken at the site where contamination was identified during tie-in activities on Spread 7 (Line 3 Replacement) in December 2018. The IOs require additional information and evidence to confirm their understanding of the work that was undertaken at the site in relation to the contamination, particularly the trench water from the site.
Information Request
Due date: 2019-05-16
Date closed: 2019-06-03 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
