Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV2223-132 - Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Team:

• Inspector 2738
• Inspector In Training T

Regulated company: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Operating company: Kinder Morgan Canada Inc

Province(s) / Territory(s):

• British Columbia

Discipline(s):

• Environmental Protection
• Indigenous Monitoring

Related events:

• CV2122-004

Rationale and scope:

TMX Spread 7B as well as Burnaby Terminal and Westridge Marine Terminal  - Assess field implementation of the environmental protection plan and association resource specific plans for ongoing construction activities; verify mitigation measures at watercourse crossings, adequate erosion and sediment control measures. Inspection included Holmes Creek and inadvertent fluid release site at KP1167.9 (Mary Hill Bypass). 

Compliance tool(s) used:

• None

Facility details

Facilities:

• TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT
• BURNABY
• WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL

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)
• Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) 2020-03-16
• Plans And Procedures
• Project-specific Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)
• Condition 72 - Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan
• Project-specific plan or procedure
• Condition 78 - Facilities Environmental Protection Plan
• Project-specific plan or procedure
• Condition 81 - Westridge Marine Terminal Environmental Protection Plan

Additional Project-specific requirements or conditions:

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - General Observations Spread 7B

Date & time of visit: 2022-06-14 10:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

• Soils and Soil Productivity
• Erosion
• Soil Handling
• Biosecurity
• Chemical Spills/Releases
• Surface Water Management
• Containment and Drainage Structures
• Water Bodies - Non-Fish-bearing
• Chemical Spills/Releases
• Sedimentation/Turbidity
• Erosion
• Water Bodies - Fish-bearing
• Sedimentation/Turbidity
• Chemical Spills/Releases
• Erosion
• Air Quality
• Emissions Control/Monitoring
• Housekeeping
• Waste Management
• Wildlife
• Species of Concern

Facility:

• TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT (Pipeline)

Observations:

Soils and Soil Productivity

• At all locations inspected by the Inspection Team, topsoil, subsoil, weed topsoil, and/or riparian soil stockpiles were spot checked. In all instances observed, stockpiles were  labelled and segregated according to EPP requirements. In some cases, poly was used to cover stockpiles as an additional mitigation.
• Sediment fences observed across the spread were erected at ramped crossings, culvert water bodies and drainage locations. No concerns noted.
• Spill kits were spot checked across the spread and observed to be present in locations they were required and stocked with applicable spill response materials.
• Equipment was spot checked for biosecurity inspection stickers, no concerns noted.
• Drip pans were consistently observed under stationary equipment at all locations inspected by the Inspection Team.

• TMEP activity occurring around various waterbodies were inspected across spread 7B.  Appropriate erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures were observed to be in place and installed effectively. No concerns noted.
• Buffers were erected around watercourses in all instances spot checked.
• Signage at watercourses was observed by the Inspection Team to be present but lacked detail (e.g., whether it was fish bearing, the watercourse ID, the size of the required buffer) and were printed on 8 x 11 size paper (rather than larger corrugated plastic). . Upon identifying this to TMEP representatives, staff proactively and quickly responded to improve the signage at watercourses on the spread. Inspection Officers note that TMEP was issued an Information Request (IR) pertaining to the same issue during a previous field inspection (CV2122-122). TMEP responded to this IR on 14 January 2021.  By the following morning, larger signs on corrugated plastic with increased information present on the sign was observed at all subsequent waterbodies inspected. Photos of the improved signage at the two watercourses where the issue had been initially identified were also viewed by the Inspection Team. TMEP staff reported to the Inspection Team that: 1. signage across the spread has been updated; and 2. That the contractor will be looking at printed signs, but until then the handwritten signs will  be used.
• TMEP staff reported to the Inspection Team that the entire Spread 7B is considered to be within 100 m of a waterbody, so signage for appropriate refueling locations are not present. Staff described the ‘2-man’ refueling system as is described in the EPP and Environmental Field Guide.

• Sandwich board indicating top environmental risks reviewed. The risks include: Archaeological - Heritage Resource Chance Finds, Wildlife – Nesting Birds, Watercourses – Erosion and Sediment Controls and Spills, and High Weed Density Areas.
• The location was fenced and security measures in place to prevent foot traffic in the area.    
• Buffers were erected around the watercourses and ESC measures in place. Spill kits present at watercourses and stocked with applicable spill response materials.
• Signage at watercourses was observed by the Inspection Team but lacked detail (see Water Bodies section for more detail).
• General housekeeping in good order. No litter observed, waste properly segregated, soil stockpiles were segregated and signage present.
• Bird deterrents were observed being used in the area.  In some locations geotextile fabric was used to cover vegetation to deter nesting birds.

• Inspection Team visited the location of a previous inadvertent fluid release (IFR) in an unnamed channel (BC 780a1) that occurred during a horizontal directional drill (HDD) under the Fraser River (INC2021-182).
• The location of the IFR has been isolated with steel pilings but the cleanup has not yet occurred. TMEP staff and the Inspection Team discussed ongoing challenges and why the cleanup hasn’t been completed. TMEP staff reported that delays were due to access issues as the impacted area is outside of the construction footprint.
• Inspection Team viewed both TMEP and the contractors IFR cleanup/response plans.
• Active water quality testing activities were observed on site. Monitoring reports spot checked to ensure that requirements are being met. The group discussed the fish-bearing status of this water body, which was reported to be non fish-bearing during the incident reporting process. See Information Request #1.
• A water treatment plant which is active on the site and monitored regularly was viewed, and the Inspection Team discussed the treatment system with the sub-contractor.

• Spot checked various locations across the spread for mitigations including signage, buffers and salvage / sweeps for wildlife. Specific species of interest in 7B which were all spot checked included various nesting birds, Oregon forest snails, and painted turtle. No concerns noted.
• Inspection team observed various contractor wildlife specialist conducting sweeps and salvaging throughout the spread, as per TMEP requirements.

• Foremen were questioned on awareness and access to current bird buffer maps at all active work locations inspected. In all locations spot checked, foremen were aware of active nests in their work areas and were able to produce the current map upon request. No concerns noted.
• Bird deterrents were observed being used frequently along the spread including visual deterrents and covering potential habitat (Course woody debris and blackberry bushes) with geotextile material.

• At the north end of Colony Farm Regional Park, TMEP indicated that Oregon forest snails had been previously salvaged and relocated to suitable off-footprint habitat. The Foreman of the crew working in the area was aware of the Oregon forest snail habitat as well as mitigations related to his crew and their work scope.
• Exclusion fencing was spot checked in two wetland ecosystems across the spread, no concerns noted.

• The Inspection Team inspected the active-work areas of this stretch of construction along United Blvd to verify compliance with the specific Contamination Identification and Assessment Plan (CIAP) developed for this former landfill area (Condition 46).
• TMEP indicated that all water from the site is being treated as contaminated and pumped into an on-site water treatment plant, which the Inspection team viewed.
• A confined space hazard assessment completed by an Industrial Hygienist was requested and reviewed for this location to verify requirements of the CIAP. This report advised that no workers should be allowed in the trench ‘during active soil disturbing operations’ to mitigate exposure to potential presence of harmful volatile gases (from the landfill material). The TMEP Foreman and the Construction Manager both demonstrated awareness of this requirement.
• The contractors Contaminated Soil Exposure Control Plan was also viewed by the Inspection team, which described engineering and administrative controls to protect workers.
• The Inspection Team requested the Industrial Hygienist report to support the decisions which were made around air quality monitoring for the site (in addition to the confined space report which was also viewed), but none was provided.
• Hand and eye wash stations available on site in case of dermal exposure.
• The Inspection Team verified that an impermeable plug had been installed at the terminus of the contaminated soil and groundwater area, as required by the CIAP, as a mitigation to ensure that the pipeline does not create a conduit for further contamination migration.
• Air fans and 4 way monitors observed in the trench to monitor air quality and circulate fresh air. H₂S and methane were reported by the two primary gases of concern by the Health and Safety lead for TMEP Spread 7B, which was the minimum requirement set out in the CIAP.
• TMEP staff responded to the IO that the volatile gases being monitored to ensure worker and public safety include those measured by 4-head monitors, which were observed at the top of the trench.
• No soils were reported to have been stockpiled on site (it was directly hauled for off-site disposal), thus contaminated soil storage requirements not applicable in this case.
• Inspection Officers had expected to see more from TMEP on Spread 7B at this location with respect to a greater safety focus on air quality monitoring for volatile contaminants (hazards) identified for this high risk contaminated area as well as general cognizance about the contaminant hazards at this site. However, IOs have no specific compliance issues to raise at this time and note that at the time of this inspection the ‘higher risk’ work was largely completed already.

• Mitigations were spot checked to ensure TMEP requirements were met at several locations across Spread 7B. See Information Request #2.
• The Inspection Team discussed local First Nation engagement and involvement at the Mary Hill Bypass location (with respect to incident response) and at Colony Farm Regional Park with company representatives.
• The Inspection Team viewed TMEP’s internal tracking system of SIS and archaeological features in general. Viewing this mapped-tool allowed the Inspection Team to verify mitigations to the Live Resource Specific Mitigation Tables (LRSMTs) for SIS across the spread.  
• The Heritage Conservation Act site alteration permit for one particular SIS (DhRq-414) location at the Colony Farm was spot checked, no concerns noted.
• Signs were observed across the spread in areas requiring archaeological monitoring, clearly indicating whether they were “green”: archaeological assessment complete and no mitigation necessary; “orange”: requiring on-site monitoring for ground disturbance activities at depths greater than 70 cm; or “red”: areas in which ground disturbance is currently prohibited and further archaeological investigation is required.

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 2 - Burnaby Terminal

Date & time of visit: 2022-06-16 09:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

• Soils and Soil Productivity
• Erosion
• Surface Water Management
• Surface Water Management Plan
• Water Bodies - Non-Fish-bearing
• Sedimentation/Turbidity
• Housekeeping
• Waste Management
• Wildlife
• Species of Concern

Facility:

• BURNABY (Facility)

Observations:

• Waste was appropriately segregated (e.g., metal, wood, general waste, recycling), no litter was observed, and randomly checked spill kits were appropriately stocked.
• Secondary containment and extinguisher presence were opportunistically spot checked on available equipment.
• Erosion and sediment control measures in place were properly installed and functioning properly. Secondary containment was observed under parked equipment. 
• Multiple water treatment and water retention areas were observed at Burnaby Terminal. No concerns were noted.  
• Bird nest buffers and signage present. The Inspection Team viewed creative mitigations for alternative bird habitat being employed by the EI.
• The reclaimed Eagle Creek riparian area within TMEP footprint was inspected. Stope stability appeared effective due to riprap, coco-mat placement, and reseeding with a combination of local flora and rye grass.
• The TMEP EI at the Burnaby Terminal demonstrated thorough knowledge of the facility, water and wildlife management, and the applicable regulatory requirements.

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 3 - Westridge Terminal

Date & time of visit: 2022-06-16 13:00

Discipline: Environmental Protection

Categories:

• Surface Water Management
• Surface Water Management Plan
• Housekeeping
• Waste Management
• Water Bodies - Fish-bearing
• Chemical Spills/Releases
• Wildlife
• Species of Concern

Facility:

• WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL (Facility)

Observations:

• Waste was appropriately segregated (e.g., metal, wood, general waste, recycling), no litter was observed, and randomly checked spill kits were appropriately stocked.
• Secondary containment, hazardous waste storage and extinguisher presence were opportunistically spot checked on available equipment.
• Water management was discussed and observed at Westridge. Three water treatment plants were in place at Westridge, and grout-laden water was kept separate from general surface water. No concerns were noted.  
• Inspection Team spot checked the Fisheries Act Authorization for Westridge, which the EI readily produced.
• The Trans Mountain Indigenous Monitor shared that no archaeological finds were discovered during investigation of soils removed from the work area.
• TMEP EI at the Westridge Terminal demonstrated  thorough knowledge of the facility, the ongoing construction, and the applicable environmental regulatory requirements.
• The team discussed incident INC2021-164 to better understand the conditions that lead to the release of the conditioning agent to the ocean.
• The Inspection Team viewed the Portal area and noted the air circulation and water treatment systems. No concerns noted. The IOs understand, from the EI, that further corrective actions and updates to TMEP procedures have been implemented as a result of this release than what was reported in the incident report. No further concerns noted.

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: