Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV1920-047 - Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Activity #: CV1920-047
Start date: 2019-08-19
End date: 2019-08-23

Team:

Regulated company: Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

Operating company: Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

Province(s) / Territory(s):

Discipline(s):

Related events:

Rationale and scope:

Final Clean Up Inspection of Spreads 8-9 of the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project. Majority of construction was completed in 2018 with only final clean up remaining. Inspection should focus on soil handing practices and reclamation at watercourse crossings, and a selection of contaminated or remediation sites.

Compliance tool(s) used:

Facility details

Facilities:

Regulatory requirements

Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:

Regulatory instrument number(s):

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - Contaminated, Potentially Contaminated, and Remediation Sites

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-20 07:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:


In-office discussion

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 2 - Field Inspection of Contaminated and Remediated Sites.

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-20 07:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

REM-0102 MP 707.9, project KP 976+000
This contaminated site underwent remediation over the summer-fall of 2018 in conjunction with the Line 3 Replacement Project. The remediation was via excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil and shale bedrock.  Enbridge rep stated that the contamination is believed to be the results of a long term, slow leak rather than the result of a specific or recorded spill event.
The IO reviewed a subset of the remediation-related documentation as part of the inspection (Remedial Action Plan (RAP), Remediation Program, and RAP Addendum). The remediation documentation states that Enbridge had excavated and removed the majority of contamination, however not all of the contaminated soil could be removed due to engineering constraints related to the existing infrastructure, particularly valve(s).  “Soil pedestals” were left in place to support the pipelines and valves at certain locations within the excavation. The Remediation Program report states that approximately 18,000 m3 of contaminated soil and shale bedrock and 418 Tonnes of hysdrovac slurry was removed from the site, and approximately 685 m3 of contaminated soil and shale bedrock was left in place. In situ remediation amendments were applied to the contaminated soil left in place.  A RAP Addendum has been submitted to the NEB for the ongoing management of the remaining contamination. A plan for groundwater monitoring is summarized in the RAP addendum.    Enbridge rep was of the view that Swan Lake First Nation were aware and understand the situation, including regarding the contamination remaining on site. Discussed the independent soil sampling conducted by a consultant hired by Swan Lake First Nation, and the potential for groundwater sampling to be conducted by that consultant.
Discussed, and later observed in the field, the remediation site area which had been reclaimed.  The corn planted in the area is stunted in comparison to the surrounding field.  Enbridge rep discussed that it had had its consultants assess the site, and they found that subsoil compaction was the reason for the poor growth.  Recommendations and a plan to ameliorate the situation have yet to be developed.
A water quality monitoring well across the road and in the ditch from the valve site at KP 976+000, associated with REM-0102 was not locked and it was brought to the Enbridge rep’s attention. It appeared the lock was unable to be closed because the latches were separated too far for the lock to close. The Rep contacted Enbridge’s operations group and the lock was replaced the following day. (See CNC #1).
The CER will continue its oversight of this contaminated site, including the additional reclamation work required to address the poor crop growth, via the CER’s remediation process.

REM 2018-032 MP 708.35, KP 976+900
Enbridge Rep determined that the ESA whereby this site was identified was initiated due to consultations with the landowner. 
Five monitoring wells were observed on the site. Locks were observed on steel casings on the wells.  The lock on one well casing was checked and was confirmed to be locked.
Enbridge rep stated that the plan for this site is to remediate, via excavation and disposal to Tier 1 standards in 2020.    This site is part of Enbridge’s “Swan Lake portfolio”, where, through engagement with Swan Lake First Nation, Enbridge committed to the Nation to implement and complete remediation at five sites by 2021.  The IOs confirmed with another CER Environmental Specialists that the five sites in the Swan Lake portfolio have been identified to the CER to enable CER oversight. This includes the nearby site at MP 708.12 (REM-0399) which was not specifically inspected, as it was not identified properly within the CER database due to missing GPS coordinates for the file (follow-up required).
The CER will continue its oversight of this contaminated site (REM 2018-032), and the other sites within the “Swan Lake Portfolio” and remediation of the sites via its Remediation Process.
 

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 3 - Watercourse Crossings

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-20 14:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Unnamed Tributary to the Pembina River KP 976+600 MB-WC 50 (fish bearing)-20 August 2019
The tributary was open-cut at the end of November in 2018 and an erosion control berm was present on the slope. Willow was salvaged from the local area and planted into the two soil wraps along the banks. There was evidence of growth for some of the willow stakes.  Enbridge rep stated the expected survivorship of willow staking is approximately 50%.  The IO notes that there is no specific survival expectation or requirement cited in the EPP, rather it states “if the success rate does not meet goals additional staking will be conducted”. The banks were stable and well vegetated. One large willow was present south of the trench line – removal of this large willow had been avoided during construction. Coconut matting was installed and the disturbed area was seeded. Weeds within the riparian area were mechanically cut and Enbridge rep confirmed weeds and vegetation growth will continue to be monitored by the company. Rip rap (imported boulders) was in place. Rep confirmed the boulders were sourced from the local area (next road over).
Additional follow-up, including whether the creek reclamation, has met the reclamation goals can occur via the required Post Construction Monitoring. Water present but did not appear to be flowing. 

Cypress River (2) KP 967+800 MB-WC49 (fish bearing)-20 August 2019
Enbridge rep stated the pipe at this crossing was concrete coated (gunnite) for buoyancy control before it was lowered into the trench in the fall of 2018. The river was not flowing at the time of the inspection but there are indications of a high flows during spring runoff.  The gravel substrate appeared slightly higher at the trench line compared to the immediate surroundings, however the elevation of the substrate up and downstream of the area is variable, and includes similarly elevated areas that create pools during low flow. The IO is of the view that there is not a restriction in flow at this location, given the lack of flow and non-flowing pools present up-stream as well.
Large boulders were brought in for bank stabilization, and observed in the field. Coconut matting was installed in the riparian area and was well vegetated. Enbridge rep stated weeds were sprayed up to the 10m buffer and the rest of was mechanically cut within the 10 m buffer. Pipeline markers were installed on top of both banks of the river as required. Seeding was observed south of the river.
KP 1000+980 WC MB-WC58 Mary Jane Creek 21 August 2019 (fish bearing)
Riparian area was very well-vegetated and stable.  Coconut matting and straw wattles remain on site, but are grown over with vegetation. Vegetation observed on site included alfalfa, mixed grasses, and some weeds including wild oats and sow thistle.  Wild oats and sow thistle were observed in the surrounding area, particularly at the margins of surrounding fields (wild oats) and upstream and downstream of the crossing area along Mary Jane Creek.
There was no water flow at the time of inspection.

Spring Brook KP 912+100 MB-WC36 (fish bearing) -August 22 2019
Soil wrapping (degradable matting) remains on site.  No willows or shrubs were planted at the site, however as there are no shrubs present south of the RoW, this is acceptable. No evidence of erosion, sedimentation or slumping were observed. Vegetation (primarily grasses) is establishing.  Some sow thistle observed on site, however sow thistle was also observed in the surrounding area. Enbridge rep confirmed that a fish salvage had occurred at this site during the crossing.  Requested a copy of the fish salvage and water quality report (see Document Review Observation).

Oak Creek 1 KP 921+260 MB-WC42 (fish bearing)-August 22 2019
Enbridge rep stated that this crossing was completed as a 70 to 100 m bore, rather than open cut as cited in the EPP.  As conducting the crossing via a bore is expected to have resulted in reduced environmental impacts as compared to a dry/frozen or isolated open cut, the change from the initially planned method cited in the EPP to a bore is not a concern to the IO.  As the bed and banks were not disturbed, there was no rip rap or bank stabilization installed. A slumped area on the east bank was observed. The Enbridge rep stated that this slump was there prior to the crossing.

Cypress River 1 KP955+300 MB-WC48 (fish bearing)-August 22 2019
Vegetation at the crossing consisted primarily of a legume (possibly sweet clover, but not confirmed) that was providing good coverage and stability. Enbridge Rep stated the plan for this site would be to mow the area early next summer to allow the grasses to come in. A rare plant, green needle grass was identified in this area during the pre-construction surveys.  Discussed with Enbridge Rep how that information, including the EPP requirement to avoid the blanket use of herbicides in the area (broadcast spray) is implemented in the operations phase.  Enbridge rep confirmed that willow staking had been implemented on the east bank (on the rip rap side) but not on the west side.  The rationale provided by the Rep was that the west side had a gentle slope and did not require willow staking, and that implementing willow staking to the east side would provide cover for fish. The IO noted that there were not many willows in the surrounding area, particularly south of the RoW.  Some willows were observed on the west bank north of the RoW. The IO reviewed the pre-disturbance information provided by Enbridge as part of its application [A4E7C0], and confirmed minimal shrubby riparian vegetation was visible in the pre-disturbance photographs, and “Grasses” was cited as the riparian vegetation present for the right and left banks.  The IO found that the reclamation (staking) conducted by Enbridge appears appropriate given the conditions of the creek.  Requested to review the TLU mitigation for this portion of the project. See Document Review observation.

 

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 4 - General RoW – Final Cleanup

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-20 14:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

KP 976+000 to 976+800 -20 August 2019
Inspection team walked into watercourse MB-WC 50 Unnamed Tributary to the Pembina River from KP 976. The right-of-way (RoW) in this area was graded but still requires final disking and straw crimping. A skid steer was onsite removing rocks and garbage left on the RoW.  An area with ruts approximately 12” deep was observed near 976+400.  The Enbridge rep identified the area requiring repair to the construction team.  The IOs have no concerns with this occurrence given the phase of construction (work ongoing in this area) and immediate identification of the area for minor repairs by the Enbridge rep. 

KP 975+900 -20 August 2019
Observed the RoW within the Swan Lake First Nation. The subsoil and topsoil were replaced and graded but the area still requires disking and straw crimping. The adjacent field, including the other Enbridge pipeline RoWs contained many weeds and the company indicated the land tenant did not seed the area this year and would be disking the land. A pile of stakes and signs were waiting for disposal. The company indicated an Aboriginal Monitor was onsite for all activities within Swan Lake First Nation.

KP 967+800 -20 August 2019
Observed the steep slope to the west of the Cypress River 2. The slope had been tackified (hydromulch) and large branches and tree trunks had been scattered across as erosion control and reclamation measures. Discussed the rare plant population, Sweet fruited cicely that was present south of the RoW and within the graded area. There was a portion of the population that was disturbed during construction due to grading requirements.  The Inspection Team reviewed documentation (photos and email correspondence with Enbridge’s consultants) regarding the mitigation implemented to protect the rare plant population in this area.  A combination of avoidance and separate stockpiling of topsoil was implemented. No concerns were identified with the mitigation as implemented, noting that disturbance of a portion of the population could not be avoided. An evaluation of the rare plant survivorship and re-growth can occur via the required post-construction monitoring.

KP 967+500 and KP 966+600 -20 August 2019
The Inspection Team observed the straw shredding at KP 967+500 and crimping at KP 966+600. The EPP states the target depth should be 5 cm and the straw strands vertically 5 to 20 cm out of the ground in rows spaced approximately 15 cm apart. There was variability in the height of straw above ground, and in the thickness of the straw spread.  The inspection team was satisfied the crimping activities and observations were in compliance with requirements outlined in the EPP, and should meet the goal of reducing erosion along the RoW until the disturbed area is seeded with the rest of the field as part of regular farming practices.  The IO notes that straw crimping (mitigation to reduce wind erosion) was implemented in more areas than required by the EPP, based in part on landowner or farmer direction (Enbridge rep noted this is recorded in the line list, which was not reviewed during this inspection).KP 1000+000 20 August 2019
The Inspection Team observed machine and final clean-up (topsoil replacement). A crew was ripping, disking and grading subsoil on the eastside of Road 50, and on the west side a crew was replacing the topsoil. The company indicated they have a Subsoil and Topsoil Documentation for Reclamation guideline they use in the field. A copy was provided the following day to the Inspection Team. In the guideline it states an Environmental Inspector will use a penetrometer every 300m with one transect per land tract. Every transect will have a minimum of three assessment points. Some landowners have requested testing every 100m. Enbridge rep stated that the EIs do compaction testing after machine cleanup, and again after topsoil.
A bobcat was working on the north side of the RoW picking off/cleaning up clay that was present on the buffer strip over the Alberta Clipper pipeline (this was an approximately 3-5 m strip where a hydromulch/tackifier layer was spread over the topsoil along the Alberta Clipper pipeline RoW, to separate trench spoil (subsoil) from the topsoil along Clipper during pipeline installation).  The IO noted that some clay was present on the topsoil after the bobcat was done the work, and discussed with the rep. The rep noted that it is expected that through farming, the clay will become mixed in.  The IO notes that this can result in admixing, and subsequently has the potential to reduce topsoil quality. In the IOs experience, this is a newer or less frequently observed technique to keep trench spoil separated from topsoil (and preserve topsoil quality), and that it reduces the width of new disturbance. The Enbridge rep confirmed that Enbridge has used this technique on other projects. The IO recommends that potential effects to crop growth in these former buffer areas be monitored or assessed as part of the CER’s evaluation of the post construction monitoring reports (Condition 36).  Feedback to inform the Environmental Specialist Reviewing Enbridge’s Post Construction Monitoring Reports will be provided via a recommendation to the CER’s Compliance Program Manager for Environmental Protection.
Enbridge Rep stated that the topsoil piles were sprayed for weed control two or three times in this area.

KP 1000+500 to 1001+000 -21 August 2019
Walked from the road towards Mary Jane Creek at KP 1001+000.  The field was seeded to soybeans. The soybeans in some areas along this stretch were thin and short along the RoW in this area.  There was also an area within 100 m of the road where the soybean leaves were curled compared to the immediate surrounding area. Discussed with the Enbridge rep that in the fall there will be a final subsidence check, garbage check.  The IO recommended to the Compliance Program Manager for Environmental Protection that the CER Environmental Specialist reviewing Enbridge’s Post Construction Monitoring Reports monitor/assess the reported vegetation growth in this section to determine if there is an issue requiring reclamation work.   

KP 1011+800 -21 August 2019
Former mechanical cleaning station was present here.  The disturbed area (RoW and cleaning station) was not distinguishable from the surrounding wheat crop in this area.
There was no pipeline signage observed at the road crossing location observed here – see NNC #1.

KP 1027+800 – KP 1027+000 -21 August 2019
Walked from the road (KP 1027+800) west towards and up the first bench of the Agassiz escarpment (KP 1027+000).  See CNC #2 re: missing pipeline road signage on west side of road.
The lower elevation was seeded to soy beans, while the slope and upper field is seeded to wheat.
There were trees present along the slope in this area prior to construction.  Enbridge rep discussed that although there were other stakeholders for the project who wanted trees replaced in this area, the landowner did not agree to have trees replanted, and the landowner seeded the disturbed area to crops as soon as possible after pipeline construction and final cleanup.
The soybean crop between the slope and the road showed thin and shorter growth in some areas, particularly in an approximately 50 m by 50 m area west of the Road.  In this area, the soybeans were approximately 6-20 cm high, while the surrounding crop was approximately 50 – 75 cm high.  Depressed growth continues up, towards the escarpment. Enbridge rep communicated with project personnel who indicated that the area of depressed growth may have corresponded to an area that was wet in the spring.  The Enbridge rep stated that after the crop comes off, that Enbridge would assess the area for subsidence or other issues. The Enbridge rep later provided documentation confirming that the poorer growth was indicated on the “deficiency list” for further follow-up.
An area of the wheat crop on the north side of the RoW near the base of the escarpment showed shorter and thinner growth compared to toward the south side of the RoW.  The poorer growth was distinguishable as a distinct east-west line in the crop.  The source of this is not known, but the IO notes it could have been the result of different seeding, as there was a distinct east-west line of differing growth (potentially less seed in that pass), or the result of changes to soil as a result of pipeline construction.   
The IO recommended to the Compliance Program Manager for Environmental Protection that the CER Environmental Specialist reviewing Enbridge’s Post Construction Monitoring Reports monitor/assess the reported vegetation growth in this section (area near the road; line in the wheat crop) to determine if there are issues requiring reclamation work.  

KP 1034+600 toward Thornhill coulee (attempt) -21 August 2019
Attempted to walk from road to Thornhill coulee. In the initial portion of the RoW, the RoW was seeded to a cover crop last fall (per Enbridge Rep) and was not seeded to corn with the surrounding field. Enbridge Rep, and the inspection team observed evidence that weeds in this area had been mowed. The Enbridge Rep noted that more weed control (mowing) is planned for this fall for this portion of the RoW.
There was a low, wet area on the RoW that appeared to extend of RoW as well. It was not identified as a wetland on the environmental alignment sheets, but was visible in the satellite imagery of the area. The IO is of the view, at this time, that the low wet area observed on the RoW appears to be consistent with pre-disturbance and off RoW conditions and therefore the contouring in this area is appropriate, and the low wet area is not a concern.
A couple hundred metres into the walk, the inspection team came across a wall of approximately 10’ high corn crop.  An attempt was made to continue along the RoW through the corn crop, however due to the corn, the Inspection team did not continue beyond 10 m.  The Inspection team concluded that the corn crop was growing well along the RoW in this area.
As the Thornhill Coulee was not inspected in person, the Inspection team requested a photo of the crossing area from earlier in the spring/summer.  Enbridge provided a photograph dated 15 May 2019. No concerns were identified in the photograph, and the IO notes that there were no concerns identified at the crossing at the time of the previous inspection that occurred fall of 2018.

KP 911+600 (Hwy 2) towards Spring Brook KP 912+000 MB-WC36  -22 August 2019 
Walked in from the highway towards spring brook. Field was seeded to wheat.  Line 3 is adjacent to the other pipelines that make up the Enbridge Mainline, and is immediately adjacent to the Alberta Clipper pipeline.  The RoW of the Line 3 Replacement project RoW (based on best estimations using signage and phone-based GPS programs), appeared consistent, in terms of height, density, and general health with the wheat crop south of the RoW.  The wheat along the Alberta Clipper RoW (as estimated in the field) appeared shorter than in the surrounding field at several locations along the Alberta Clipper RoW, particularly near the crossing of the Alberta Clipper pipeline with the Road (i.e. nearer to KP 911+600). See IR #3.

KP 921+300 (towards Oak Creek) -August 22 2019
Vegetation is filling in.  Enbridge Rep stated it is mowing the area to control weeds. No concerns were noted.

KP 941+000 -August 22 2019
The area had been seeded by the landowner July 2019.  This area was the first area of the spread to be reclaimed during the spring of 2019. Minimal vegetation growth was observed at this location during the inspection, but was expected due to the timing of seeding. Enbridge rep stated there was a cleaning station at this location (RM boundary change).  No increase in weeds was evident at the time of inspection. Observed a water truck spraying the gravel road for dust control.

SF 22A (access road to RoW) -August 22 2019
Enbridge rep stated that the landowner had been hauling in soil to fill the wetland adjacent to the road. A pile of fill material was visible.

KP 942+300 -August 22 2019
Final cleanup work was observed including a dozer replacing seconds across the RoW near where SF 22A joins the RoW.  No concerns were noted at the time of inspection.

 

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 5 - Document Review

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-21 07:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Subsoil and Topsoil Documentation for Reclamation

Wetland Crossing Inspection Form 18 October 2018 MB-188 KP 1013+778 - 1013+837

Cypress 2 Rare Plant Locations Photographs VG-93

Bird Sweep Map -Oak Creek 15 July 2019 and 15 August 2019

TLU Mitigation for Cypress Creek

Email communications between Enbridge and the Municipality of Pembina -Approval granted not to have a sign at secondary low grade roads

Thornhill coulee Photograph 15 May 2019

Fish salvage data for
-Cypress 1 15 November 2018
-Spring Brook 17-19 September 2018

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 6 - IR #1 Pre-inspection Request for Information Regarding Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Sites

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-01 11:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Inspection of/at selected contaminated, potentially contaminated, or remediated sites will be included as part of the scope of this inspection.  In order to identifiy which sites will be included in the inspection, details to supplement information supplied by Enbridge as part of the Line 3 Replacement Project application (Response to IR 3.6 filing A71424), and information contained in NEB's Remediation database are required.

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Please provide the missing data identified in the attached table, particularly columns for GPS locations of potentially contaminated sites, (latitude and longitude in decimal degrees), estimated volume released, estimated volume of contaminated soil, NEB Incident number for the sites listed as potentially contaminated (PC). Upload Enbridge's response (i.e. the completed table) to ORCA.

Due date: 2019-08-13

Date closed: 2019-09-10
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

Observation 7 - IR #2 Status and History of Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Sites

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-15 13:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

In response to IR 1, Enbridge provided information on the location of known contaminated sites and potential contamination sites within Manitoba.  The NEB IO worked with GIS analyst to map the sites, and to identify sites to include in the scope of the inspection.  Sites mapped include those listed in Enbridge’s Response to IR 3.6 as “Potential contamination with the potential to affect the line 3 Right-of-Way” and as “Known contamination with the potential to affect the line 3 Right-of-Way.” Following the mapping exercise, sites to potentially be inspected in the field include:

In order to make the best use of inspection time and have a reasonable amount of site history to inform the inspection, Enbridge is requested to be prepared to provide information regarding the sites listed above during the inspection. Available information will be reviewed and a subset of the sites will be visited during the field inspection.
 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Information request
Please be prepared to provide or speak to the following information for the sites at MP707.9 (REM -0102)*, MP 712.5 (REM-0257)**, MP 717, 717.2, MP 753:

  1. A brief summary of the history of the site, including listing any environmental site assessments that have been conducted to date.
  2. A summary of the results or recommendations from the most recent environmental site assessment(s) that may have been conducted.
  3. Documentation of the hazard and/or potential hazard assessment and risk mitigation considerations that have been conducted for each site.
  4. An overview of next steps planned for each site.
 
* For MP707.9 (REM-0102), the NEB IO has accessed the following recent documents (among others) from NEB internal records, therefore these specific documents do not need to be provided (applicable for b) and d) above), however if additional or new information is available, please provide it:** For MP712.05 (REM-0257) the NEB IO has accessed the following from NEB internal records 
 
 

Due date: 2019-08-20

Date closed: 2019-09-10
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

Observation 8 - IR #3 Shorter Wheat Crop Along Possibly the Alberta Clipper Line

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-22 11:34

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

The Inspection team walked from Highway 2 towards Spring Brook along the L3R RoW.  Location of the L3R pipeline was determined using existing pipeline signage and Enbridge Rep’s phone-base GPS. The L3R RoW is adjacent to (south of) the Alberta Clipper pipeline installed in 2008/2009.  While walking along the L3R pipeline, the Inspection Team observed that the wheat was shorter and had heads that were more bent than the surrounding field in several areas north of the L3R RoW, and believed to correspond to the Alberta Clipper RoW.  Based on the estimations made in the field, it appeared the decreased growth was north of where the hydromulch separation layer would have been implemented during the Line 3 construction, however this is not confirmed. The shorter growth was most evident in an area near the crossing of the Alberta Clipper pipeline and Highway 2 (approximately 10-20 m into the field).
 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Company action required:

Confirm whether the areas of depressed growth observed fall on the Alberta Clipper RoW or the L3R RoW. Photos showing certain areas of decreased growth that include GPS coordinates are attached to the documents page shared with Enbridge.
Provide the results of an assessment of reclamation parameters (e.g. topsoil depth, topsoil compaction, subsoil compaction, admixing, vegetation height, vegetation density, vegetation health) at the areas of observed shorter growth between highway 2 and Spring Brook.
Based on the results of the assessment, identify whether reclamation work to ameliorate site conditions are warranted and if so, the plan to conduct any work at the site.
 

Due date: 2019-10-25

Date closed: 2019-12-02
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.

Reason closed: Requirement met

Compliance achieved: Yes

Observation 9 - CNC #1 Unlocked Monitoring Well West of REM-0102 at KP 976+000

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-20 14:15

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

A groundwater monitoring well across the road and in the ditch from the valve site at KP 976+000, associated with REM-0102 was not locked and it was brought to the Enbridge Rep’s attention. It appeared the lock was unable to be closed because the latches were separated too far for the lock to close. The Rep contacted Enbridge’s operations group and the lock was replaced the following day.
 

Compliance tool used: Corrected Non-compliance (CNC)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Repair latch and/or replace lock on the groundwater monitoring well so it is secure.

Due date: 2019-08-21

Date closed: 2019-08-21
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 10 - CNC #2 Missing Road Crossing Sign at KP 1027+800

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-21 15:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Road crossing signage was not in place on the west side of the road at the pipeline crossing near KP 1027+800.  A sign was in place on the east side of the road.  During discussions, Enbridge reps confirmed that a sign had been installed at that crossing previously, however, it had been knocked down by farming operations and brought back to the yard. While the Inspection Team remained on site, a worker came to the site with a replacement sign and began installing it.
 

Compliance tool used: Corrected Non-compliance (CNC)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Replace the missing sign on the west side of the road.
 

Due date: 2019-08-21

Date closed: 2019-08-21
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 11 - CNC #3 Garbage (twine) at KP 955+000 to 955+300 (near Cypress River 1)

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-22 15:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

The Inspection Team walked the RoW in this section and observed plastic twine dispersed among the crimped straw.  The area had been straw crimped, and the twine is from the straw bales that are shredded, blown and then disked into the soil (crimping).  The Inspection Team observed that there was an excessive amount of twine pieces/debris spread through the field.  Note per the corrective action cited below, Enbridge had a labourer come to site prior to the Inspection Team departing to pick up the twine debris. 



 

Compliance tool used: Corrected Non-compliance (CNC)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Enbridge will have the plastic twine debris (garbage) picked up from the RoW on the east and west side of the driveway and disposed of appropriately.
 

Due date: 2019-08-22

Date closed: 2019-08-22
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 12 - NNC #1 Missing Signage at KP 1011+800

Date & time of visit: 2019-08-21 12:15

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

At KP 1011+800 the Inspection Team observed a section of the RoW that included a road crossing without pipeline marker signs for L3R and the existing mainline pipelines within the corridor. Enbridge staff indicated that the road is a public road that is maintained and managed by the Municipality of Pembina, and is located within a road allowance.

An email was provided to the Inspection Team on 22 August 2019 stating the Municipality granted Enbridge approval to not put up signs on secondary/low grade roads and stated these “trails” are single lane and don’t have ditches to separate them. Enbridge also indicated that the landowner farms right up to the edge of the road on both sides and Enbridge claims the landowner does not want the signs put up.

 
 

Compliance tool used: Notice of Non-compliance (NNC)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Please provide a summary of how Enbridge plans to satisfy the signage requirement as stated in CSA 10.5.3.4 at this location.
  Provide Enbridge's plan to identify similar road crossing locations (low maintenance RM roads) and assess signage requirements for those crossings for the remainder of Spreads 8 and 9. Discuss whether there are other spreads on the project where similar evaluation of signage requirements is warranted and confirm whether it will be completed.

Due date: 2019-11-18

Date closed: 2020-02-18
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:

- 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