Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV2122-259 - Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Activity #: CV2122-259
Start date: 2021-07-07
End date: 2021-07-09

Team:

Regulated company: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Operating company: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Province(s) / Territory(s):

Discipline(s):

Related events:

Rationale and scope:

TMEP Edmonton Terminal Construction Inspection (OC-064, AO-003-OC-2 and AO-002-OC-49)

Compliance tool(s) used:

Facility details

Facilities:

Regulatory requirements

Regulatory requirements that apply to this activity:

Regulatory instrument number(s):

Additional Project-specific requirements or conditions:

AO-004-OC-49

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - Day 1 - IR 1

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

12:15 PM - TMEP field site at Edmonton Terminal Northern West Tank Area

2:15 PM - TMEP field office at Edmonton Terminal Northern West Tank Area

CER inspectors reviewed documentation and received information from TMEP personnel as follows:

1. Final construction drawings for Tank 1 and Tank 2:

2. Tank Foundation:

     Drawing ETO-CEO1661 SHT1 Rev 2 of 8 May 2020:

3. Tank Roof:

4. Tank Shell Plates:

5. Non-conformance Reports (NCRs)

 

 
 

 

 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

IR 1

Preamble:

TMEP filing A4K4W3 dated 13 April 2015, pdf pages 208 and 209 of 237, states that TMEP intended to conduct further geotechnical investigation at the north end of the Edmonton Terminal West Tank Area (WTA) for the proposed new storage tank foundations, during the detailed engineering and design phase. During the CER inspection, TMEP could not demonstrate whether the geotechnical investigation report provided (i.e., document #01-13283-TE-ETOO-EV-RPT-003 R1) accounts for any final determinations arising from the geotechnical screening evaluation regarding old underground mine workings as committed to in the response 4.60 to the CER IR No. 4 of filing A4K4W3.

Request:

Confirm whether the report provided to inspectors represents the final report for the geotechnical investigation related to old underground mine workings as committed to in the reference mentioned above. If document #01-13283-TE-ETOO-EV-RPT-003 R1 is not the final report for the geotechnical investigation, provide the final report that accounts for the geotechnical screening evaluation mentioned in CER IR response 4.60. Alternatively, provide a statement from a geotechnical engineer confirming that the presence of old underground mine workings will not introduce a potential risk of surface subsidence.  

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2021-09-09
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 - Day 2 - NNC 1

Date & time of visit: 2021-07-08 07:30

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

7:30 AM - TMEP field office at Edmonton Terminal Northern West Tank Area

1. Details regarding the shell plates for Tank 2, Tank 3 and Tank 4 were provided (information was included in the observations of Day 1).

2. Site inspection of WTA was conducted:

3. Field office documentation review and discussions:
4. Roof Tank 1:
  • The roof access has been completed
  • The access to the internal floating roof consists of spiral staircase, wind girder, hatch access and rolling ladder. Drawings were provided as supportive documentation.​
 

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

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Day 2 - NNC 1

Preamble:
NNC 1 regarding WPDS for WPS CPL-92 Rev 4 
- The Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) CPL-92 Rev 4 was updated on November 18, 2018 to include the Procedure Qualification Records (PQR) CPL-6-1A and PQR CPL-7-1A which specify the ESAB OK 55.00 as filler metal for Fill/Cap pass.
- The Welding Procedure Data Sheet (WPDS) for WPS CPL-92 Rev 4 provided for review specifies the ESAB OK 55.00 as filler metal for Fill/Cap pass.
- Although the WPS CPL-92 Rev 4 also references PQR CPL7-4 which specifies the ESAB OK 55.00 filler metal, the WPDS for CPL-92 Rev 4 still needs to reference the supporting PQR CPL-6-1A and PQR CPL-7-1A in alignment with the WPS CPL-92 Rev 4.
- TMEP’s  Fabrication Welding Specification, Paragraph 15 requires that the brand names of electrodes used for production welding must be the same brand name as that used for procedure qualification, any changes are subject to purchaser approval, even full requalification of the WPS. This is applicable for the FCAW, GMAW, GTAW, MCAW, EGW and SAW processes (exception SMAW).
 
Request:
Provide a new revision of the WPDS for WPS CPL-92 referencing the supporting PQR CPL-6-1A and PQR CPL-7-1A in alignment with the WPS CPL-92 Rev 4.

 
 

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2021-09-09
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 - Day 2 - NNC 2

Date & time of visit: 2021-07-08 14:00

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

This Observation was created for NNC 2 which is related to Observation Day 2. 

The Procedure Qualification Records (PQRs) MS-20-07 and MS-20-08 for Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) FC-124-1 specify the E71T-12M-J filler metal (i.e., brand name Kobelco DW-A55ESR).
The Welding Procedure Data Sheet (WPDS) for WPS FC-124-1 provided for review, specifies the E71T-1M-J F6, A1 as filler metal with the SFA specification 5.32.
WPDS and WPS with the referenced PQRs do not list the same filler metal specifications.
TMEP’s Storage Tank Welding and Non-Destructive Testing Specification TMEP-MT3052, Paragraph 9.1 requires that fabrication production welding shall be completed using the same brand name or AWS/ASME filler metal and flux classifications as used for WPS qualification. If changes to filler metal or flux brand name or AWS/ASME classification are necessary, TMEP may require complete requalification of the WPS with the new filler metal and/or flux. This is applicable for FCAW, GMAW, GTAW, MCAW, EGW and SAW processes.

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

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

1. Confirm whether the use of E71T-1M-J F6, A1 filler metal has required re-qualification of the WPS FC-124-1 and explain.
2. Provide supportive documentation to demonstrate that the E71T-1M-J F6, A1 has been approved by TEMP as filler metal for
WPS FC-124-1.
3. Provide new revisions of the WPS FC-124-1 and related PQR MS-20- 07 and PQR MS-20-08 in alignment with the WPDS used and provided during the inspection.

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2021-09-09
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 4 - Day 2 - NNC 3

Date & time of visit: 2021-07-08 14:00

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

This Observation was created for NNC 3 which is related to Observation Day 2. 

Tank welding parameters record form provided during inspection does not demonstrate that tank welding parameters were reviewed and approved by the TMEP independent inspector as required by OPR s.54(1). In comparison, the welding parameters data acquisition report for station piping provided during the inspection was approved by Metalogic welding inspectors and the TMEP representative (Refer to Observation - Day2).
 
Section 12.1. of TMEP’s Joining Program for Facilities Construction does not provide information regarding the verification of tank welding parameters by TMEP’s independent welding inspector. The Inspection Test Plan (ITP) for tank erection does not include an activity related to welding parameter records.
TMEP response to CER IR 29 states that the QAEP welding specialist responsible for completion of field verifications reports to Trans Mountain Quality Assurance and is independent of Construction Management. The response also states that TMEP has committed to the provision of at least one independent welding inspector for each active work location where welding is taking place.
 
Tank welding parameters form provided to CER inspectors does not demonstrate that welding parameters were reviewed and approved by TMEP’s independent welding inspector as required by OPR s.54(1) and it is not in accordance with TMEP commitment presented above.
 

 
 

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

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

a) Provide all tank welding parameters record forms issued at the north end of the Edmonton Terminal WTA demonstrating that welding parameters have been reviewed by TMEP’s independent welding inspector and have been accepted in accordance with applicable WPSs.

b) Confirm that TMEP will update the Field Erection Inspection Test Plans (ITPs) for all tank fabricators and each tank of the project to include a new activity involving the independent TMEP welding inspector's review and the approval of recorded welding parameters.

c) Provide one updated ITP for the Edmonton Terminal showing the new activity and related fields being added.

 
 

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2021-09-16
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 5 - Day 2 - IR 2

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Day 2 - IR 2

IR 2 regarding Cord Welding Inspector Qualification

The six-year CWB welding inspector recertification timeline expires on November 30, 2021. The certification endorses the applicable codes and standards including ASME B31.3-2012 and CSA Z662-11 which were outdated at the time of issuing the certificate, based on expiring date and recertification interval. The certificate should had referenced newer versions of ASME B31.3 code and CSA Z662 standard.
 

 
 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:


Confirm that:
a) The welding inspector qualification had aligned with the requirements of the newer applicable versions of ASME B31.3 and CSA Z662 at the time of issuing the certificate.
b) The welding inspector qualification currently aligns with the requirements of the latest ASME B31.3-2020 and CSA Z662-19 editions CSA Z662-19 editions. 

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2022-01-20
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 6 - Day 2 - IR 3

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Day 2 - IR 3

IR 3 regarding Metalogic Welding Inspector Qualification

The six-year CWB re-certification timeline for Metalogic welding inspector expires on December 31, 2022. The ASME B31.3 code endorsed by the certification references the 2010 edition which was outdated at the time of issuing the certificate based on expiring date and recertification interval. The certificate should had referenced a newer version of ASME B31.3 code.


 

 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Confirm that:
a) The welding inspector qualification had aligned with the requirements of the newer applicable version of ASME B31.3 at the time of issuing the certificate. 
b) The welding inspector qualification currently aligns with the requirements of the latest ASME B31.3-2020 and CSA Z662-19 editions. 

 

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2022-01-20
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 - Day 2 - IR 4

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Day 2 - IR 4

IR4 regarding Cord’s Isometric History Report (Job No: 407021-00393 Edmonton Terminal): 

The report states that visual inspection was completed and recorded (i.e., Report # VI-2021-07-07). No results/comments were included in the “Comments” box of the isometric report to confirm that the visual inspection met the applicable ASME B31.3 code acceptance criteria.
 
 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:


Confirm that the visual inspection results met the applicable ASME B31.3 acceptance criteria and were acceptable.

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2022-01-20
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 - Day 2 - IR 5

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Day 2 - IR 5

IR 5 regarding the use of a non-woven geotextile (LP 16) and a Layfield Enviro Liner 6040

TMEP provided drawing ET00 – CEO1661 Sheets 01 Rev 2, 02 Rev 2 and 04 Rev 3 that shows civil sections and details for the Edmonton Terminal West Tank Area. These drawings detail the use of a non-woven geotextile (LP 16) and a Layfield Enviro Liner 6040. Additionally, the use of a non-woven geotextile or liner was not disclosed as part of filings for Condition 23 (i.e., A81948-4 Secondary containment – Edmonton Terminal) and it was largely native clay responsible for providing the required impermeability.

 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

a) Confirm that the impermeability of the design meets CSA Z662 requirements and provide a brief explanation on which layers provide the required impermeability.
b) Explain, referencing the applicable fire code(s), how the non-woven geotextile (LP 16) and Layfield Enviro Liner 6040 is protected from fire. If applicable, explain how the thickness of any protective layers was determined to be sufficient.
c) Explain the rationale for changing from a largely native clay material to a design that contains a non-woven geotextile and a liner to meet the required impermeability.
 

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2022-01-20
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 - Day 2 - IR 6

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

Day 2 - IR 6

IR 6 regarding the applicable tank WPS for 2V1 and 2V2 on Tank 4 and hardness requirements

TMEP provided documentation related to Tank 4 (i.e., 2V1 and 2V2 for the shell plate welding) for review. This included a weld map, welder qualifications, shell MTRs, shell thicknesses, hardness testing and a PAUT map. With regards to the hardness testing, the test report specifies an acceptance criteria of 0 to 225 HB.

 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

Provide:
a) A drawing or documentation that specifies what WPS is to be used for 2V1 and 2V2 for Tank 4.
b) Provide a drawing or documentation that confirms the acceptance criteria for the hardness of welds to be 0 to 225 HB.

Due date: 2021-09-03

Date closed: 2021-09-08
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 - IR 5 response follow-up - IR 7

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

IR 5 responses have been reviewed and the conclusions icluded in the inspector analysis of IR 5 are listed below. This Observation was created for the request of addional information (IR 7). 

TMEP response to IR 5a) confirms that the Geomembrane Enviro Liner 6040x  material which has been used in Edmonton Terminal tanks secondary containment will provide the impermeability required by CSA Z662-19. TMEP states that through ASTM F1249, a permeation rate of 3x10-13 cm/sec was determined for Enviro Liner 6040x  material which meets the requirements of CSA Z662-19.

Further information to the response to IR 5a) regarding the equivalence of the permeability results, is required. 

TMEP response to IR 5b) states that a non-combustible cover material is provided in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b) of the National Fire Code - 2019 Alberta Edition provides that if an impermeable membrane is combustible that it be covered with a non-combustible material that will prevent the membrane from failing in the event that the secondary containment is exposed to fire. 

Further information to the response to IR 5b) regarding the non-combustible cover material as per requirements of Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b) of the National Fire Code - 2019 Alberta Edition, is required. 

TMEP response to IR 5c) states that the change to a design employing a geotextile and liner was required because the stockpiled material was determined to not be suitable to meet the permeability requirements. 
TMEP's design submitted to the CER under Condition 23 (A81948-4, PDF p.6 of 19) and approved in the CER Condition Compliance Letter Report No.6 of 23 October 2019, indicates that the berms and floors of the secondary containment area would be constructed of largely clay materials designed to meet the impermeability requirements of CSA Z662, Clause 4.15.1.4. 

Further information to the response to IR 5 c) regarding to the change to the impermeable barrier design, is required.

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

a) Explain the equivalence of the permeability results obtained through ASTM F1249 to the hydraulic conductivity requirement in Clause 4.15.1.4 of CSA Z662-19 of 1 x 10-6 cm/s or less, determined as specified in ASTM D5084.

b) Clarify how the manufacturer-recommended non-combustible cover material thickness was determined with respect to prevention of membrane failure in the event of a secondary containment fire, as required in Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b) of the National Fire Code – 2019 Alberta Edition. Provide design criteria in the response where applicable (e.g.: fire intensity, duration, etc).

c) i. Provide the approximate percentage of West Tank Area secondary containment surface area covered by geotextile and liner, versus the fraction covered by native clay.
c) ii. Clarify the nature of the stockpiled material referenced in the response, and the tests conducted to determine its unsuitability as an impermeable barrier in the secondary containment area.
c) iii. Similar to the response to IR 1, provide a statement including any supporting assessments or statements from the engineering consultant responsible for the design of the West Tank Area secondary containment, confirming that the change to the impermeable barrier design is equivalent to the original design approved in the CER Condition Compliance Letter Report No. 6 of 23 October 2019.

d) Explain why TMEP does not consider the secondary containment impermeable barrier design change to require a variance application, considering the application of a geotextile and liner as the secondary containment impermeable barrier was not submitted in Trans Mountain’s approved design.
 

Due date: 2021-10-01

Date closed: 2021-10-26
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 - IR 2 response follow-up - IR 8

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

This Observation was created to request additional information following-up on the review of IR 2 response. 

1. ASME B31.3-2020, Chapter VI, para. 340.4 lists the requirements for qualifications of the Owner's inspector. 

2. Cord welding inspector's certificate includes endorsements for ASME B31.3-2012 code and CSA Z662-2011 standard. The current code edition applicable for piping welding at the Delivery Manifold Area is ASME B31.3-2020. 
As stated in the IR 2 response, the welding inspectors are expected to continually refer to the edition of the code being used when evaluating flaws. ASME B31.3-2020 Table 341.3.2 for example, includes updated requirements for welds acceptance criteria.

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

1. Explain how Cord welding inspector's qualifications meet the requirements of ASME B31.3-2020, Chapter VI, para.340.4 a) and c).

2. Confirm which edition of ASME B31.3 that the piping welds at the Delivery Manifold Area have been evaluated to and accepted by the Cord welding inspector. 

Due date: 2021-10-01

Date closed: 2021-10-25
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 - IR 3 response follow-up - IR 9

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

This Observation was created to request additional information following-up on the IR 3 response.

IR 3 response states that the welding inspectors are expected to continually refer to the edition of the code being used when evaluating flaws. The Methapase Examination Report references the ASME B31.3-2016 code edition.   

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

1. Confirm which edition of ASME B31.3 that the piping welds at the Delivery Manifold Area have been evaluated to and accepted by the Metalogic welding inspector.

Due date: 2021-10-01

Date closed: 2021-10-25
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 13 - IR 4 response follow-up - IR 10

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

The response to IR 4 confirms that the visual inspection performed on the weld listed in Cord's Isometric History Report has met the applicable ASME B31.3 acceptance criteria. The supported evidence provided in the attachment to the IR 4 response (i.e., Daily Weld and Visual Examination Report VI-2021-07-07) lists ASME B31.3-2018 code for the acceptance criteria for visual examination of the welds. 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

1. Confirm that the visual examination results met the ASME B31.3-2020 acceptance criteria requirements. 

2. Explain TMEP's measures to be implemented to ensure that the welding inspectors refer to and follow the appropriate codes and standards when performing welding inspections. 

Due date: 2021-10-01

Date closed: 2021-10-25
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 14 - IR 7 response follow-up - NNC 4

Date & time of visit: 2021-10-26 14:00

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

Facility:

Observations:

IR 7 responses have been reviewed. The conclusions included in the inspector analysis are also listed below. This Observation was created for the NNC 4. 

IR 7 a) 
TMEP provided the permeability results for Enviro liner geomembrane using ASTM F1249 test method in comparison with the test on clay soils using ASTM D5084. The attached EnviroLiner 6000x brochure provides a permeation rate of 3x10-13 cm/sec, much lower than the CSA Z662-19 requirement of 1x10-6 cm/sec and a geosynthetic clay liner at 1x10-9 cm/sec. TMEP confirmed the ratio of thicknesses between the clay barrier and the Enviro liner to be 591 to 1 and that, even at this ratio, the Enviro liner is over 1600 times more effective in resisting fluid transmission through the barrier. 

IR 7 b)
TMEP stated that Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b of the NFC requires that a combustible geomembrane be covered with a non-combustible material to prevent the liner from failing in the event of a fire and since there was no standard or design information on the thickness of the non-combustible layer, Layfield (vendor) supplying the EL6040 geomembrane and LP16 geotextile used at Edmonton Terminal conducted a fire study (provided in the attachment). TMEP stated that: the fire trial report outlines the duration of fire applied to the secondary containment device; the testing was performed to mimic a fire scenario and see if the fire applied to fuel (ethanol) within the containment will impact the liner under the backfill layer; and the result of this study was used as basis to provide a minimum of 150mm granular cover over the liner within secondary containment. 
The response which is based on the information from the fire study attached, does not provide sufficient demonstration of how the manufacturer-recommended non-combustible cover material thickness was determined to be adequate with respect to prevention of membrane failure in the event of a secondary containment fire, as required in Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b) of the National Fire Code – 2019 Alberta Edition. The study is not dated and was performed for a different project applying a different combustible product than in TMEP (i.e., ethanol vs crude oil), the duration of the flame test was only 10 min (repeated), and it was used as basis to provide a minimum of 150 mm granular cover over the liner within secondary containment. 
CER inspectors note that the fire study does not appear to be representative of the scale, duration and intensity of a secondary containment pool fire design scenario in determining the adequacy of the noncombustible material covering for prevention of geomembrane failure due to secondary containment fire exposure. The response is considered unsatisfactory. 

IR 7 c) i.
TMEP confirmed that 100% of West Tank Area secondary containment surface area is covered by geotextile and liner.
CER inspectors note that the design of the Edmonton Terminal secondary containment, filed under Condition 23 and approved in Letter Report No. 6 provides for berms and floors of the secondary containment area constructed of largely clay materials - no details regarding the implementation of geomembrane liners are submitted under the approved design.
 
IR 7 c) ii.
TMEP stated that the geotechnical investigation performed by Stantec on the stockpile and the existing fill across the WTA did not find the material suitable for use as compacted clay liner (i.e. section 5.2 in the attached, Geotechnical Investigation Report Enhanced FEED stage, prepared by Stantec dated February 24, 2015). TMEP also stated that no further tests were conducted on the stockpile material to assess its suitability for use as a liner in the secondary containment area and that this material was not used as a secondary containment liner.
CER inspectors note that the Stantec report’s finding on the unsuitable nature of native clay for a barrier layer was issued nearly two years prior to Trans Mountain’s Condition 23 filing in March 2017. It is unclear to CER inspectors why native clay was proposed as the material for the berms and floors of the secondary containment under Condition 23, contrary to the findings in the report.   

IR 7 c) iii.
TMEP provided an attached memo from WorleyCord as the engineering consultant responsible for the design of the West Tank Area secondary containment confirming that the use of a synthetic liner for secondary containment is an improvement over the clay liner previously approved.
CER inspectors note that the memo does not address how the installed liner design is an improvement over the approved design in Letter Report No. 6 with respect to protection from fire exposure damage, as required by Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b) of the National Fire Code – 2019 Alberta Edition. The response is considered insufficient in determining the equivalency of the installed liner to the approved design.

IR 7 d) 
TMEP stated that during detailed design it was found that design presented in Condition 23 filing did not align with recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report as both the stockpiled material and the in-situ material were identified unsuitable for use as liner material and would not meet the permeability requirements of the approved design. Therefore, to meet the Secondary Containment floor permeability code requirements as detailed in table 3.2 of Appendix B2 of condition 23, TMEP used the synthetic liner system in the final design in compliance with Geotechnical report recommendation. TMEP considered this upgrade to the liner system a normal part of design development during detail design and since the final design still meets the code requirement specified in Condition 23 filing and geotechnical recommendation. TMEP did not consider this as variance to the application. 

Based on the response to IR 7 d) the inspectors consider that TMEP is in non-compliance with the requirements of Condition 23 and approved in Letter Report No. 6. The final design for the project submitted as per Condition 23 requirement on 1 March 2017 and approved by the Commission on 23 October 2019 does not contain information regarding the change in the design of the secondary containment impermeable barrier from the approved native clay material to a geotextile and liner material.
The CER inspectors consider that TMEP must notify the Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator (Commission) regarding the change in the final design of the secondary containment liner, explain the changes and their equivalence to, or improvement over the appropriate design, for consideration by the Commission with respect to the deviation from the requirements of Condition 23 and approved in Letter Report No. 6.
In addition, as explained above, the CER inspectors consider that the response to IR 7 b) is not satisfactory and TMEP needs to provide further clarification regarding the manufacturer-recommended non-combustible cover material thickness and how this was determined with respect to prevention of membrane failure in the event of a secondary containment fire, as required in Clause 4.3.7.2 (2) b) of the National Fire Code – 2019 Alberta Edition.
Furthermore, the CER inspectors consider that responses to IR 7 c) i to 7 c) iii., require further information as noted above. 

 

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

Regulatory requirement:

Relevant section(s):

Company action required:

File a notification under TMEP Condition 23 with the Commision of Canada Energy Regulator (Commision) regarding the change in the final design of the secondary containment. In support for the Commission consideration with respect to the deviation from the requirements of Order AO-003-XO-T260-010-2016, the following information but not limited to, must be included in the filing:
i. Explanation  for the design changes;
ii. Demonstration of equivalency between the design changes and the approved design of Letter Report No. 6;
iii. Clarification regarding the manufacturer-recommended non-combustible cover material thickness and how this was determined with respect to prevention of membrane failure in the event of a secondary containment pool fire. Include calculations and assumptions where appropriate;
iv. Explain why the design change findings regarding the unsuitable nature of native clay for the impermeable barrier in the 2015 Geotechnical Investigation Report (KMC Document # 01-13283-TE-ET00-TYT-RPT-0013) were not reflected in the March 2017 Condition 23 filing of Order XO-T260-010-2016 (as amended); 
 

Due date: 2022-01-11

Date closed: 2022-01-19
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