Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV2122-185 - NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Team:

• Inspector 2648
• Inspector 2408

Regulated company: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

Operating company: TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Province(s) / Territory(s):

• Alberta

Discipline(s):

• Safety Management
• Indigenous Monitoring

Related events:

• CV2122-184

Rationale and scope:

NGTL 2021 - Karr Section: The Karr Section consists of approximately 57 km of NPS 48 pipeline, mainline block valves, associated crossover assemblies and launcher/receiver assemblies. The Karr Section begins at NW 28-63-01 W6M and ends at NE 26-67-05 W6M. Assess field implementation of construction safety manual and project specific safety plans for ongoing construction activities; worker tasks including identification of hazards and appropriate controls relevant to the job tasks via hazard assessments; company implementation COVID-19 safety protocols; company oversight of contractors - training & competence, monitoring, supervision and accountability; assess execution of work per applicable procedures and documented work practices.

Compliance tool(s) used:

• Information Request (IR) (1)
• Corrected Non-compliance (CNC) (1)

Facility details

Facilities:

• GRANDE PRAIRIE MAINLINE LOOP NO. 2 (KARR SECTION)

Facility Types

• Pipeline
• Pipeline right of way (ROW)

Life-cycle Phases

• Construction

Regulatory requirements

Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:

• Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA)
• Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA)
• Canadian Energy Regulator Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations – Authorizations
• Canadian Energy Regulator Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations – Obligations of Pipeline Companies
• National Energy Board Act (NEBA)
• Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR)

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - IM Observations

Date & time of visit: 2021-09-22 09:00

Discipline: Indigenous Monitoring

Categories:

• General
• General

Facility:

Observations:

The following section contains independent observations made by an Indigenous Monitor who accompanied the Canadian Energy Regulator Inspection Team during this inspection, as part of the CER’s commitment to the NGTL's Indigenous Monitoring Program. They are reproduced and publicized within my report for greater transparency. They are not my conclusions but represent one source of information among others I have considered throughout the inspection along with my own direct observations and information received from the company.

IMAC – Sucker Creek First Nation - SCFN Services – IM:
Safety Inspection - September 21-24,  2021 CV2122-185 Grande Prairie area accompanied with CER and NGTL/Midwest Environmental Team

1. September 22, 2021: Karr Yard with the CER, NGTL/Midwest Environmental Team and Emerinskin IM, for site Orientation and discuss the day activities
2. September 23, 2021: Midwest Elmworth Yard with the CER, NGTL/Midwest Environmental Team and Emerinskin IM, for site Orientation and discuss the day activities

• We were on a Safety Inspection, most of the pipeline was already buried or being buried
• Signage and silt fence in place
• Saw one water crossing under construction with coco matting in place
• Fencing and signage around open excavation
• Bentonite being used to help with erosion control and rainfall areas on slopes or near crossings
• Hydro testing completed day before
• Equipment was clearing and pushing backfill on Right of Way in areas
• There were Crews doing tie in and stringing of pipe
• Berms under construction on slopes
• Safety Inspection included working on and around slopes with equipment
• As an indigenous Monitor my observation of plants and medicine were not found on Right of Way due to the timing of our Inspection close to the end of construction, pipe already buried or being buried as we were on site. Company IM accompanied us for the day and we shared our experiences as IM’S
• Foreman provided FLHA and documents when requested. Any concerns were addressed immediately.
• Very clean, organized and well maintained sites on the Right of Way
• Distance between sites we Inspected were very far apart that our visits had to be planned appropriately allowing time to see what we needed and time spent doing Inspection

• Observed tie ins activities 
• Observed tear sling laying on the RoW by ditch line not marked or out of service correctly Corrective action lead foremen took the sling and disposed of it properly 
• Looked over operators logbook, safety tickets to see they are still active 
• Observed side booms and slings 
• Signage and fencing in place
• Housing keeping was good 

• Observed hydro vac work, swamped was standing by edge of the excavation with no harness on corrective action was taken and swamper was notified to be harnessed up because of the depth of the excavation. Due to him by the edge. 
• Observed back filling and grading activities 
• Signage and fencing in place 
• Signed on fhlas 

• Observed coating truck and personnel 
• Observed backfilling and compacting soil around underneath pipe to make a strong base for pipe

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 2 - General

Discipline: Safety Management

Categories:

• Workplace Exposures and Protections
• Safeguarding
• Personal Protective Equipment
• Hazard Assessment

Facility:

Observations:

General

• During the inspection, the company and contractor representatives provided a review of incentive programs that they have in place on this project to recognize, reward, and promote positive action. 
• During the inspection the CER were told that OHS audits at this spread were not conducted “when a representative sample of the personnel and Work activities can be observed” due to COVID limitations. As part of a post inspection IR, the CER were however, provided with an audit that had recently been completed in August of 2021.
• During the inspection the Lead NGTL Safety inspector for this spread told the CER that they review the work activities and determine which areas to inspect based on high hazard tasks. The inspector also told the CER that they are in the field interacting with the contractor and workers on a daily basis and that they participate with the contractor lead safety during inspections. As part of a post inspection IR, the CER reviewed a sampling of recent inspection reports created by this inspector.
• Good housekeeping on this spread.
• All workers the CER interacted with were aware of their roles and responsibilities and told the CER that ‘unsure was unsafe’
• Spoke with TC inspectors about their roles and responsibilities. Reviewed craft inspection reports.
• The steep slope signage color (red, blue, black) differentiation was explained to the CER. The CER observed this signage in place at different locations along the slope indicating a change in grade and equipment limitations. For example, blue signage was posted where slope gradient was from 15-20o, red signage from 20-30o, and black signage if greater than 30 o.  Equipment limitations were also identified in correspondence with each category.
• The CER were shown detailed drone footage of the entire spread that had been taken a few days prior to the inspection.
• The contractor told the CER that they only permitted the use of UTV by their workers and that any quads used on the spread were TC employees. The CER note that one inspector training certificate is dated 2009. It is unclear whether the training provider issued expiry dates in 2009, however, the CER were provided with certificates issued by the same training provider issued in 2020 and 2021 that have a 3 year maximum expiry.
• As part of a post inspection IR, the CER reviewed a sampling of recent inspection reports created by craft inspectors on this spread during various phases of construction.

• CER noted a frayed sling on the ground next to the excavation. When pointed out, the contractor representative removed the sling from the site by placing it in their vehicle for disposal.
• The CER observed ‘Hot Line’ crossing signs, however it was difficult to ascertain where the hot lines being crossed were as they were not marked. The contractor advised that the hot line in question was a third party small diameter line. The CER were told that while all crossing permits were in place, the third party owner did not require their line to be marked or other protections in place. The CER spoke to the contractor about its worker protection and general damage prevention best practices that could be put in place to mitigate the potential for contact with the line in question. While the CER was on site the contractor had the third party line marked with yellow stakes to identify its location.
• CER inspectors review heavy equipment inspection logs. The CER requested and reviewed the engineering certificate and MOB inspection report pertaining to a CAT594 Sideboom at this location.
• Foreman explained their role and responsibility to the CER at this location.

• CER observed spotters supporting heavy equipment movement.
• CER observed backfilling of pipe
• CER were shown bentonite plug placement in the excavation to assist with excavation and soil stability once the excavation is backfilled.
• CER spoke with coating and blasting crew workers with respect to the respiratory equipment being used. The workers and contractor safety representative told the CER that air compressors on the vehicles are not used to supply breathing air to workers, workers use a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR)

• CER observed hydrovac activities taking place at this location. Signage with respect to noise was posted in front of the vehicle
• Hydrovac operator told the CER that the vehicle is equipped with a functioning positive air shut off(PASO)
• CER observed excavation and backfilling activities occurring in close proximity to neighboring pipelines. Observed hot line crossing signs to be in place. CER observed a spotter was being used to direct the activity of the excavator while working in close proximity to hot lines.
• CER noted all excavation at this location to be fenced off, and egress stairs build in to the excavation.

• CER spoke with two UTV operators at the top of the steep slope. Discussed UTV manufacturer specifications and vehicle limitations on steep slopes. The 2 UTVs were equipped with owner’s manuals that did not specify the slope limitations for the UTVs.
• Observed the ROW to be signed appropriately to identify hot lines in proximity to the construction in addition, the newly backfilled pipe was identified.

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

• Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR)

Relevant section(s):

• • 18. Construction Safety
    • (1) If a company contracts for the provision of services in respect of the construction of a pipeline, the company shall
      • (a) inform the contractor of all special conditions associated with the construction;

Company action required:

KARR – SMJV:
Please provide the following:
 

1. Provide copies of any safety audits completed on the project by NGTL or their contractor. If no NGTL audits were conducted please provide the rationale. “The audit/formal inspection must be conducted when a representative sample of the personnel and Work activities can be observed.”
2. Please provide the variance issued to SMJV regarding their requirement to conduct and HSE audit of the Karr Spread –The CER were told that the required HSE Audit did not occur due to COVID.
3. For Karr - Completed inspection forms from NGTL and contractor H&S management - last 3 Wednesdays( Sep 1,8,15 2021)
4. Copies of craft inspector dailies (3 most recently completed for each person):
   • Karr:
     • Inspector X,
     • Inspector X, and
     • the inspector for the steep slope visited  - one inspection report for each of the following stages clearing grading, stringing, and lowering-in
5. Provide explanation/documentation to identify how requirements of s. 4.2 of TES-CT-SLOPE-GL Slope Work Specification CAN-US-MEX have been achieved.
6. Confirmation if there have been any updates to the steep slope documents required as per the TES-CT-SLOPE-GL Slope Work Specification CAN-US-MEX (provide the updates if so. If not, provide rationale for not being completed).  For example. Section 4.6.2 of the TES-CT-SLOPE-GL Slope Work Specification (CAN-US-MEX)  states The Hazardous Slope Work Plan shall identify the changes to the site conditions that would effect a change to the Hazardous Slope Work Plan (e.g., tropical rain, ice, snow, lighting storm). And the SMJV Slope Construction Safety & Execution Plan states “SMJV anticipates that the grading works in this area to be well within machine capabilities and will provide a grade design after clearing works have completed which will be updated and included in Appendix C of this document.” Appendix C for SMJV shows the original slope data prior to clearing and does not include grade design.  Appendix C docs are dated 28/10/20 and the report date (showing no revisions) is dated 03/11/20.
7. Please provide the Machine Stability Risk Assessment for the machines being used by NGTL inspectors on Karr. Section 4.5.2 of the TES-CT-SLOPE-GL Slope Work Specification (CAN-US-MEX)  states “The Hazardous Slope Work Plan shall identify the equipment and machine manufacturers’ recommended safe working limitations.”
8. Please explain how the TES-CT-SLOPE-GL Slope Work Specification CAN-US-MEX Table 3-2: Wheeled and Tracked Machine Stability Risk Matrix was created.
9. Please identify the ‘wheeled machines’ used on the slope visited during the Karr inspection and their maximum slope limitations established by the manufacturer.
10. Please provide a rationale for Post Grade ‘Machine Stability Risk Assessment – Risk Value for Wheeled Vehicles’. The CER observed that there appeared to be no assessments for slope limitations of wheeled vehicles.
11. Please provide verification that the ‘Micro-crack’ and other items identified in the inspection log book for the CAT 594 Unit # SB137 completed in August prior to the machine being delivered to this project (as reviewed at Karr Road 1 KP1+093) were reviewed and determined to be within acceptable tolerance or corrected prior to use.
12. Provide the NGTL inspector training and competency evaluation for ATV/UTV use.
13. Please provide copies of the 3 most recently completed ATV/UTV Competency Evaluations if applicable.
14. Please provide copies of the 3 most recently completed Supervisor Steep Slopes Competency Evaluation if applicable.
15. Please provide copies of the 3 most recently completed Steep Slope Worker Competency Evaluation if applicable.

Due date: 2021-10-21

Date closed: 2021-11-05
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 3 - CNC#1: Lack of adequate controls while working in proximity to open excavation

Date & time of visit: 2021-09-22 09:00

Discipline: Safety Management

Categories:

• Workplace Exposures and Protections
• Safeguarding
• Personal Protective Equipment

Facility:

• GRANDE PRAIRIE MAINLINE LOOP NO. 2 (KARR SECTION) (Pipeline)

Observations:

A worker was observed at KP 0.00 standing within 0.5m of an open excavation (greater than 2.5m in depth) without any means of protective measures in place to prevent falling into the excavation.  The individual was working as a spotter for a second worker who was working within the excavation with a high pressure water wand from a VacTruck.  According to company and contractor site personnel, the worker had previously worn a fall arrest harness while performing similar tasks but was not doing so at the time of the inspection.  Once noted, the company took action to ensure the worker donned a fall arrest harness at the time of the inspection.

Compliance tool used: Corrected Non-compliance (CNC)

Regulatory requirement:

• Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR)

Relevant section(s):

• • 6.5 Management System Processes
    • (1) A company shall, as part of its management system and the programs referred to in section 55,
      • (f) establish and implement a process for developing and implementing controls to prevent, manage and mitigate the identified hazards and the risks and for communicating those controls to anyone who is exposed to the risks;

Company action required:

The issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection Officers at the time of the inspection.  No further action is required.

Due date: 2021-09-22

Date closed: 2021-09-22
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

Observations (company follow-up required)

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