Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV1617-396 - TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Team:

• Inspector 1536
• Inspector In Training 2331T

Regulated company: TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Operating company: TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Province(s) / Territory(s):

• Ontario

Discipline(s):

• Integrity Management

Related events:

• CV1617-379

Rationale and scope:

Scope: King's North Connection - Observe construction activities, such as tie-in welding, pipe handling, lowering-in and coating application and repair. In addition, conduct follow-up from previous Inspection observations CV1617-379, this may include obtaining either an update/observation on the HDD, sink hole and FBE cracking. Rationale: Pipe handling activities can impact the FBE coating which already has known issues due to previous bending. Observe and follow up on other construction activities – HDD, frac-out, tie-in welding

Compliance tool(s) used:

• Information Request (IR) (1)

Facility details

Facilities:

• King's North Connection Pipeline

Facility Types

• Pipeline
• Pipeline

Life-cycle Phases

• Construction

Regulatory requirements

Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:

• National Energy Board Act (NEBA)
• Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR)
• National Energy Board Act (NEBA) until 1 April 2020, Canada Energy Regulatory Act (CERA) after 1 April 2020
• Standards
• CSA Z662-15 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems

Regulatory instrument number(s):

• XG-T211-027-2015

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - Inspector Notes - Day 1

Date & time of visit: 2016-07-19 14:30

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Bends and Elbows
• Pipe Storage and Handling
• Inspections
• Coating

Facility:

• King's North Connection Pipeline (Pipeline)

Observations:

NEB inspectors arrived at the Bolton yard site and received an overview of the activities in progress and an update since the previous NEB inspection. A safety meeting was also conducted.
During this meeting, the company had remarked that:

• they had encountered historical contaminated waste as a result of the previous landowner using vehicle batteries as fill material near Line 200-2
  • In this area, the pipe had polyken tape coating. The contaminated site didn't appear to have affected the existing pipe, however the company did perform a coating repair in 2 locations after jeeping.
  • the company was remediating the site and ensuring that all safety requirements were being met
• in regards to the stuck HDD:
  • the company had cut out the pilot part of the drilling pipe
  • the remaining 720m of pipe stuck will be abandoned. The company was waiting for the grouting plan to fill the abandoned pipe and the remaining 600m of bore hole
  • the new HDD will be drilled 6m to the west with the same drilling plan and the operations will still occur within the same easement
  • the new HDD will now be installed with 50m of casing at the at the entry and exit pilot holes. The previous HDD had 21m of casing.
  • the new HDD won't be commenced until the stuck pipe and the bore hole has been filled with grout .
• in regards to the sinkholes:
  • all sinkholes have been filled in
  • a 2nd sinkhole was discovered when the company was trying to remove the casing from the original HDD
  • the company had constructed a temporary bridge to alleviate any vehicle loading pressure.
• in regards to pipe handling:
  • there appeared to be delayed cracking in the coating of the stored pipe at the bends (field cold bends)
  • the pipe was jeeped, then re-jeeped and then cracking was found
  • the apexes were recoated

• The sand was being compacted in the trench.
• the trench was approx. the length of 2 joints
• precautions were being taken to mitigate the effects of electrical conductivity from overhead electrical wires
• steel plates of the trenchbox were grounded
• a daily excavation review form is filled out with measurements of H2S, CO, and O2 being conducted at 4 times per day
• the slope of the trench appeared to have been adequately shored.
• the company appeared to have controls in place so that people didn't fall into the trench

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 2 - Inspector notes - Day 2

Date & time of visit: 2016-07-20 08:45

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Bends and Elbows
• Lower-In
• Pipe Condition
• Pipe Storage and Handling
• Coating
• Evaluation Imperfections

Facility:

• King's North Connection Pipeline (Pipeline)

Observations:

NEB inspectors arrived on site at Shoofly 14 and noted the following observations:

• met with the coating inspector
• looked at the pipe stored on site
• this section of pipe had undergone jeeping in February once the FBE cracking issue had been identified and again in March and June and no cracks were identified during the three different jeeping activities. 
• as a result of the cracked FBE identified on other bends on this project, the company had proactively sandblasted approximately one foot on either side of the apex of the bend and recoated the pipe with epoxy. Observed a 5" long hairline crack in the coating which was found 11 July 2016 after jeeping
• jeeping had identified 2 cracks in the coating - one 5" long and one 3" long
• these cracks were identifed on a location of the bend away from the apex which had already been sandblasted and recoated
• company stated that jeeping would occur again 24 h before of installation
• company had sent samples to the lab to determine the cause of the cracking of the coating
• company had stated that the pipe had been taken from the middle of the pile - there was no whitewash on this section because it was not exposed to the allow the application of whitewash and in additon should not have been directly exposed to the sun's ultraviolet radiation
• company said that when the pipe was intiaitlly evalauated that there was no flexibility or adhesion testing of the coating which had been performed
• on the bent portions of pipe, sandblasting and recoating had been performed 1 ft on either side of the apex of the bend

• the first 9 m of pipe pulled through had been removed
• a coating conductance test had been performed
• the abrasion resistant layer appeared to have a few patches
• a welding blanket had been placed on the exposed weld
• company indicated that the scratches had not affected the corrosion-resistant layer and just affected the abrasion layer

• from a distance, noted the contaminated zone. Company indicated that full gear had been used to remediate the contaminated area. A membrane and boards were used in the area not subject to remediation.
• viewed 1300m of pipeline, which was mostly class 1 (two short sections classified as Class 2), but thickness and hydrotesting will be subject to Class 3 requirements. A location has been identified for valve placement in the event of an increase in class location to Class 4.
• The pipeline had 2B bcoating on DSAW pipe. The standard indicated was Z245-20. It was coated in 10/30/2013
• viewed hydrostatic testing test heads - OD 914mm, MAOP 14600 kPa
• viewed interlock safety valve chain on the pig launcher/receiver - MWP 9930 kPa
• viewed drill pipe to be used in HDD
• viewed HDD location - 60" casing was inserted with a length of 50 m, located 6 m away from the previous stuck HDD. Casing was removed from the stuck HDD.
• observed jeeping of pipe to be lowered in shortly after. Few coating repairs were made post-jeeping.  This coating repairs appeared to be as a result of normal pipe handling and and not related to previously identified cracking
• Observed lowering in of the 4 joints with 3 sidebooms. Appeared to have 30 m spacing between slings which was according to specifications
• company indicated that there would be compaction after backfilling

• welding inspector presented inspection reports and WPS
• NEB inspectors looked at the weld log for the project
• company indicated that repair list is generated daily and that there was a 4.3% repair rate for the specific day.

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

• CSA Z662-15 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems

Company action required:

Company to provide the NEB with the initial assessment conducted and all supporting documentation (eg. test results) in accordance with CSA Z662-15 Clause 5.12(b).

Company to provide the updated engineering assessment that was used to determine that the pipe was fit for service, after identifying the coating cracks. Include the integrity management plan to monitor the unexamined pipe coatings under the watercourse crossings.

Provide a justification for applying the FBE coating on the 15.7 WT pipe to the CSA Z245.20-2006 code in 2013, when a later revision of the code was applicable

Due date: 2016-08-12

Date closed: 2016-11-10
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.

Reason closed: Requirement met

Compliance achieved: Yes

Observations (company follow-up required)

Identified non-compliances to company plans or procedures are non-compliances either to: