Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV1920-046 - Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Activity #: CV1920-046
Start date: 2019-09-16
End date: 2019-09-20

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 5/6 of the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project. Construction was completed in 2018 with only final clean up remaining. Inspection focused on soil handing practices, invasive plant management and reclamation at watercourse crossings.

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 - Pre-Inspection Preliminary Documentation Request

Date & time of visit: 2019-09-13 09:51

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Prior to the inspection the CER IOs sent a request to Enbridge via email requesting specific documents would be made available to them in the field in order to verify compliance with certain EPP requirements. The request also noted that additional document requests may be made over the course of the inspection.

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Information Request
The following documentation was requested to be available to the Inspection Team:

Spread 5
Bird Sweep data for period prior to final cleanup or most recent

Results of “Subsoil and Topsoil Documentation for Reclamation” i.e. reclaimed topsoil depths, compaction testingIdentify Seed Mixes implemented (by # indicated in EPP)Confirmation of seed certificate of analysis reviewPre-Construction Photos/information and any plans for reclamation (e.g. contractor plans or drawings)Archeologists daily report (or summary table) for topsoil salvage and/or ground disturbance 
Spread 6
Bird Sweep data for period prior to final cleanup (or most recent if final cleanup hasn’t occurred)Results of “Subsoil and Topsoil Documentation for Reclamation” i.e. reclaimed topsoil depths, compaction testingIdentify Seed Mixes implemented (by # indicated in EPP)Confirmation of seed certificate of analysis reviewPre-Construction Photos/information and any plans for reclamation (e.g. contractor plans or drawings)Documentation re: fish salvage and water quality monitoring for in-stream workArcheologists daily report (or summary table) for topsoil salvage and/or ground disturbance
 
 

Due date: 2019-09-17

Date closed: 2019-10-03
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.

Reason closed: Requirement met

Compliance achieved: Yes

Observation 2 - General Observations

Date & time of visit: 2019-09-17 06:15

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Construction Activities Observed:
CER Inspectors and IAMC Monitors (the inspection team) observed a variety of activities over the course of this three day inspection:

Construction Activities Observed:


The inspection team attended the morning Inspectors meeting on 17 Sept 2019 to learn about status and planned construction activities. The inspection team met with Enbridge Indigenous Monitors on 17 Sept 2019 and on 19 Sept 2019. No issues were noted and Enbridge IMs indicated they are effectively integrated into the Project team.

The inspection team reviewed the hazards with the site foremen at all locations and signed the Field Level Hazard Assessment's (FLHA) as appropriate over the course of this three day inspection.

Dewatering/Drying:
The region traversed by L3R spreads 5 and 6 had experienced several weeks of heavy rains prior to this inspection. As a result, some activities had been shut down previously and/or were shut down during the course of this inspection. The inspection team observed spreading/drying of clay and topsoil as well as dewatering of the RoW. Activities observed were appropriately managed with no issues noted.

Wetlands and Watercourses:
A range of wetlands and wetland complexes are present across spreads 5 and 6. The inspection team visited Pipestone Creek (fish-bearing), Stoney Creek (fish-bearing), Wetland SK902 (Class III, fish-bearing wetland), unnamed watercourse WC-085 (not fish-bearing), Wascana Creek (fish-bearing), and Kronau Creek (not fish-bearing). Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures were appropriately implemented in all areas observed. Evidence of recent maintenance and repair of ESC measures was observed in multiple locations, which demonstrates appropriate management given recent precipitation events. In one instance at Kronau Creek, maintenance of a silt fence and minor erosion rills had not yet occurred, however Enbridge was able to provide documentation demonstrating that this site had been pre-identified as a deficiency for follow up.
 
The inspection team observed areas where weeds appeared to have been killed by herbicide in multiple locations adjacent to watercourses and wetlands. Enbridge indicated that significant rain fall had occurred since herbicide application, raising the water level of some of the wetlands making it appear that herbicides were applied closer to the water than they actually were. The inspection team and Enbridge discussed potential hazard of impacts to aquatic life from herbicide application in these areas, as well as protocols followed by Enbridge during invasive plant management in these areas. Enbridge indicated that it follows all applicable legislation and manufacturers’ guidance in the application of herbicides on the L3R Project, and that application is done by Qualified Herbicide Applicator Contractors. CER Inspectors requested, received and reviewed SDS and manufacturer’s instructions for herbicides used at the inspected watercourse and wetland crossing locations. Enbridge's approach to weed management, including herbicide application and chemical weed treatment is outlined within the Biosecurity Management Plan within the EPP, notably the section "Chemical Weed Management Options." Item 6 in that section outlines factors to be considered if considering herbicide use within 30 m of a waterbody or wetland. The Inspectors acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck between effectively and efficiently preventing the spread of invasive species, and reducing potential hazards associated with herbicides that can harm the environment, particularly in close proximity to waterbodies and wetands. CER Inspectors reviewed in detail the herbicide SDS sheets provided by Enbridge for products applied on L3R and note that the potential hazard of toxicity to aquatic life is explicitly noted within ecological information of all products idenfitied as used on this project. Enbridge maintains that this potential hazard is mitigated so long as products are applied as per manufacturer's instructions. CER Inspectors did not observe any visible evidence of impacts to aquatic environments during the inspection, which is consistent with Enbridge statement of product application following manufacturer instructions. Enbridge indicated that the majority of the application of herbicides was on top soil piles to control pioneer and problematic species of weeds that would present future revegetation constraints for native vegetation. CER Inspectors have determined that herbicide use on the project appears to be done in compliance with the approved EPP and Biosecurity Management Plan requirements. CER Inspectors have also referred to matter to the Program Manager, Environmental Protection.
 
Six Scentless Chamomile plants were observed adjacent to Wascana Creek which were immediately removed by the Enbridge EI without prompting. In the discussion that followed, Enbridge described their invasive plant management strategy for the project, and how this considers site specific hazards from herbicide application (ie. Proximity to watercourses/wetlands), landowner feedback as well as consideration of various control methods.
 
Wildlife mitigation including signage and exclusion fencing observed to be appropriately installed at locations inspected. Wildlife sweeps ahead of construction observed in progress at Pipestone Creek. Northern leopard frog observed on west side of crossing. CER IOs requested and reviewed biologists report from wildlife sweep at this location. No issues noted.

Biosecurity:
Before entering the RoW, the inspection team and company escort vehicles were cleaned at a local wash bay, following by a bleach solution sprayed on the tires then left for 15 minutes. Spot check of equipment biosecurity records (backhoe BH-087) revealed up-to-date cleaning log. No issues noted. In-field discussion with dozer operator handling topsoil demonstrated that the operator was aware of equipment cleaning requirements. 

Spring Clean-up / Deficiencies:
Housekeeping was generally observed to be appropriate with the exception of an issue in the area of Wascana Creek where final cleanup had already occurred, yet twine from straw bales was observed amongst spread straw on the RoW. This issue had been raised and a CNC issued on the previous Line 3 inspection (Spread 8/9).  Enbridge Reps self-identified the issue as well as a proposed corrective action plan, which included cleaning up the site inspected as well as a communication to site inspectors and foremen to specifically target this issue. Evidence of this project-wide communication, was shared the following morning.  The CER IO's consider this issue to have been appropriately managed by the company, and therefore no compliance tool was required. 

Heritage Resources:
No compliance issues were observed or noted regarding cultural sites or sensitive areas of importance to indigenous groups. Signage and mitigation measures (fencing) were generally appropriate, with minor maintenance completed immediately upon request to downed fencing at one location where required (no crews working at the time). 
The Inspection Team met with the Enbridge’s Aboriginal Monitoring Teams for both spreads 5 and 6 in two distinct meetings. No concerns regarding relationships, communication, or works implemented to date were raised during either of these discussions, and Enbridge Indigenous Monitors indicated that to date their input had been appropriately considered by Enbridge. No issues noted.

Wildlife:
Observed several areas of northern leopard frog habitat (overwintering and/or breeding areas).  Mitigation remained in place at many locations from winter construction activities.  Ongoing survey and assessment was being completed by an Enbridge contracted biologist and Indigenous participants who the Inspection Team met on site).  The recommendations made for Pipestone Creek north/east bank were reviewed. The management/mitigation implemented for northern leopard frog habitat sites was appropriate. Observed a snake hibernaculum, with exclusion fencing remaining in place from winter, and confirmed ongoing oversight by the biologist and IPs. The breeding bird period had passed at the time of inspection.  For several sites, the bird/wildlife survey results from previous surveys were reviewed. No concerns were identified.
   
 

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

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