Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection
Team:
Regulated company: Westcoast Energy Inc., carrying on business as Spectra Energy Transmission
Operating company: Westcoast Energy Inc. carrying on business as Spectra Energy Transmission
Province(s) / Territory(s):
Discipline(s):
Related events:
Rationale and scope:
[To verify compliance to the DPRs with focus on third party oversight]
Compliance tool(s) used:
Facilities:
Facility Types
Life-cycle Phases
Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:
Additional Project-specific requirements or conditions:
Observation 1 - NNC#1 - Emergency Response, communication of hazards
Date & time of visit: 2022-10-11 12:12
Discipline: Emergency Management
Categories:
Facility:
Observations:
Failure to communicate the hazards and controls to anyone exposed to the risks At the time of the inspection, Westcoast had not provided any hazard or emergency response information related to its pipelines to the TransMountain Expansion Project (TMEP) employees, its contractors or its sub-contractors. At the time of the inspection, TMEP’s contractor provided the CER IOs with the site Emergency Response Field Handout for TMEP spread 5A (ERP). The print edition provided did not include any information related to the product carried in the 30” and 36” Westcoast facilities that run through the site or any Westcoast emergency contact numbers for either gas control or Westcoast representatives. CER confirmed that the Westcoast emergency line number was available in the trailer, but it was unclear if anyone on site was aware of when they would need use it. A copy of the same edition of ERP was later uploaded to ORCA and, it had been updated to contain contact information for the Westcoast representative. At the time of the inspection, TMEP and Westcoast had not discussed how an emergency on the Coquihalla 2 site would be handled. The topic had not been discussed in a safety meeting or practiced in an exercise and the contractors had not been given basic “how to identify an issue” awareness, call-out procedures or basic leak detection information. The CER IOs are of the view that, due to the the presence of its pipelines on the TMEP worksite, the variety of work they are conducting, and the type of equipment they are using, TMEP and its contractors would be expected to react in the event of an incident such as a leak or rupture. Therefore, CER IOs have determined that Westcoast is required to provide hazard awareness and basic emergency response information for natural gas products to TMEP and its contractors who are working in proximity to Westcoast pipelines. In particular, Westcoast should ensure that these workers are aware of the properties of the product in the pipes, what to do if excavation equipment contacts or punctures the Westcoast facilities, how to identify a leak in a gas line, etc., and what to do following contact with the pipe. The CER IOs are of the view that the actions taken by these workers at the time of a leak or rupture could significantly impact the outcome of an incident. CER IOs have determined that, due to the lack of hazard and emergency information and awareness provided at the TMEP sites, Westcoast is in non-compliance with OPR sections 6.5 1 (f) and section 34.
Compliance tool used: Notice of Non-compliance (NNC)
Regulatory requirement:
Relevant section(s):
Company action required:
Enbridge Field INspectors Crossing ReportCER IOs require that Westcoast take the following actions: 1. Describe how it will communicate the controls that have been developed to prevent, manage and mitigate the identified hazards, potential hazards and risks that the Westcoast facilities introduce to the spreads of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project; and its plan for communicating those controls to anyone who is exposed to such risks. 2. Provide its plan for taking all reasonable steps to inform all persons who may, due to their presence and activities on the TMEP site, be associated with an emergency response activity on the pipeline of the practices and procedures to be followed in the event of a natural gas loss of containment or damage to pipe and how it will make available to them the relevant information that is consistent with that which is specified in the emergency procedures manual. The plan shall describe how Westcoast will deliver this information to TMEP, its contractors and subcontractors at each site where Westcoast facilities intersect with the TMEP at sufficient intervals and project stages to account for contractor turnover and type of activity. The plan shall include Westcoast's proposed schedule of delivery, content outline and method for documenting that this information has been communicated where applicable.
Due date: 2022-11-15
Date closed: 2023-02-24 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 - NNC#2 - Inadequate written safety information
Date & time of visit: 2022-09-13 12:00
Discipline: Damage Prevention
CER IOs reviewed Westcoast's Pipeline Locate Report and the Crossing Agreement for the site that were part of the inspection. CER IOs are of the view that these documents do not adequately address the DPR-O section 6 requirements for written safety practices to be followed while working in the vicinity of pipelines for the following reasons: 1) Documentation is not fit for purpose The Pipeline Locate Report requires that the person who made the locate request refer to unspecified sections of a separate regulatory document to ensure that “All work within the prescribed area must be in accordance with the Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations-Authorizations”. This vague direction does not constitute "written safety practices". Also,by requiring that the person conducting the ground disturbance to refer to an external document that is not attached, incorporated, or clearly explained, the locate report cannot be considered to be stand-alone and therefore it is not useful in the context for which it was intended. 2) Documentation not provided to the appropriate party at the time when it is intended The crossing agreement provided was issued to TransMountain in response to a request for consent to construct a facility, not to the contractors who were actually conducting the ground disturbance activities. The crossing agreement is primarily a legal document outlining conditions to meet, not necessarily safety practices to be followed for each type of ground disturbance activity that could occur as a result of each request for consent. While onsite, CER IOs confirmed that the crossing agreement was present, but the contractors did not indicate that they were aware that safety practices were included in the crossing agreement. Given the nature of the TransMountain Expansion Project, there is potential for multiple contractors to be onsite at staggered intervals to conduct various ground disturbance activities such as clearing, grading, hydrovaccing, etc., and although Westcoast representatives were present during the activity and actively overseeing the activity, it was unclear how Westcoast ensures that each of the contractors conducting ground distubance receives appropriate written safety practices to be followed while they are conducting their specific activity near the Westcoast lines. 3) Documentation did not include explanation of the locate markings on the site DPR-O section 6 c) also requires the company provide information that clearly explains the markings. This information was not provided in writing.
Safety InformationCER IOs require that Westcoast develop clear written safety practices to be followed while working in the vicinity of its pipes and, in case of a ground disturbance, within the prescribed area to promote third party safety and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Observation 3 - General Observations
Date & time of visit: 2022-09-13 08:35
Day 1: Kingsvale Road site CER IOs met on site with Enbridge representatives including the Construction Manager along with Surerus Murphy Joint Venture (SMJV) and TM Damage Prevention Inspector and Crossing Inspector. Site – ROW has been cleared and brush piles were located near parking area
Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used
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
