Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV2223-178 - NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Team:

• Inspector In Training 2879T
• Inspector 2641

Regulated company: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

Operating company: TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Province(s) / Territory(s):

• Alberta

Discipline(s):

• Integrity Management

Rationale and scope:

Construction inspection for West Path Delivery 2022: XG-005-2021 NPS 48 Raven River and ABC sections.

Compliance tool(s) used:

• None

Facility details

Facilities:

• WAS Mainline loop no. 2
• EDSON M/L LOOP #4

Facility Types

• Pipeline
• Pipeline

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
• Standards
• CSA Z662-19 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems

Regulatory instrument number(s):

• XG-005-2021

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - Day 1 - ABC Section Construction Office – Geohazards Review

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-13 13:45

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Documentation
• Updating

Facility:

• WAS Mainline loop no. 2 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• CER inspectors inquired about geohazards present in the ABC Section
• Company representatives stated that a Phase II Geohazard Assessment (Field Geohazards Assessment) had been completed and that all the geohazards identified in the Phase I Geohazard Assessment (Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment) were determined to have a hazard rating of very low to low and therefore no new geohazard mitigations were required

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 2 - Day 1 - Stockyard (Immediately South of the Alberta BC Border 1 & 2 Meter Station)

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-13 14:28

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Pipe Storage and Handling

Facility:

• WAS Mainline loop no. 2 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed a small stockyard with small ends and pieces of pipe
• CER inspectors noted that some cardboard pipe caps were missing on stored pipe
• Company representatives committed to adding pipe caps where needed

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 3 - Day 1 - Construction in the Alberta BC Border 1 & 2 Meter Station

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-13 14:37

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Excavations
• Inspections
• Welding Operations
• Coating

Facility:

• WAS Mainline loop no. 2 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed two below-grade field welds in progress
• Excavation entry form was reviewed and noted to be signed off appropriately and dated today
• The ditch slope appeared to be within requirements
• Company welding inspector had two temperature-indicating sticks on his person; one for the minimum and one for the maximum required pipe temperature for welding
• Company welding inspector stated that he checks welding parameters once a day while the contracted welding inspector takes parameters for each weld
• CER inspectors observed welding inspectors donning stopwatches to time welders and clamp multimeters being used to take parameters (amperage, voltage)
• Company representatives stated that to date that there had only been one weld repair and that meant a repair rate of 0.46%
• Company welding inspector stated that welding procedures are available in many ways – smartphones, tablets, and hard copies in trucks
• CER inspectors asked about the pressure in the other lines present in the ditch and the company representative stated that the other lines were live and operating at normal pressures
• Observed the setting up for flange bolt torquing and tensioning
• CER inspectors reviewed the contractor's flange bolt torquing and tensioning
• During setup for flange bolt torquing and tensioning the contractor noted visually that the flanges appeared to be misaligned and requested a formal and more precise measurement be completed before proceeding
• Observed blasting of coating to create a cut back of 6” to 7” (152 mm to 178 mm) as required to effectively perform non-destructive examination of the circumferential weld
• The blaster was observed to be equipped with supplied air, a face shield, a helmet, and body protection while working
• Blaster stated that the required finish is 5% shadow or a near-white finish and that he conducts an inspection of his equipment every day
• Observed automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) and phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) workers getting set up
• The workers stated that they were CGSB Level 2 inspectors
• Workers stated that the AUT is calibrated every 10 welds or every time for welds that are deemed critical, while the PAUT is calibrated twice a day

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 4 - Day 2 - Raven River Section – Field Coating Inspection (KP 15+100)

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-14 15:05

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Coating

Facility:

• EDSON M/L LOOP #4 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed pipe at a tie-in location where the field-applied coating to a circumferential weld was being holiday tested (jeeped)
• A canister with a ditch entry safety form was observed on a pole securing a ladder and the ditch entry form was reviewed and noted to be signed off appropriately and dated for today
• The ditch slope appeared to be within requirements
• For coating inspection, the company coating inspector stated that:
  • A soluble salts test on the pipe is conducted before blasting
  • The blaster would also perform a blotter test to check for excess moisture or contaminants in the blasting medium before blasting
  • After blasting the pipe, the surface finish is checked using replica tape
  • Dry film thickness measurements are done in 5 spots and the acceptable range is 2.5 to 5 mils (the project was averaging 3.5 to 3.7 mils)
  • No wet film thickness measurements were being taken as the coating cures too quickly to get a measurement
  • Shore D hardness testing is being conducted
  • Adhesion testing is completed for the first circumferential weld application of the day and then once every 50 circumferential weld applications

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 5 - Day 2 - Raven River Section – Tie-In Welding (KP 14+800)

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-14 15:37

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Welding Operations

Facility:

• EDSON M/L LOOP #4 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed tie-in welding where the welders were completing the third pass with 8010 rod
• A canister with a ditch entry safety form was observed on a pole securing a ladder and the ditch entry form was reviewed and noted to be signed off appropriately and dated for today
• The ditch slope appeared to be within requirements
• Company representatives stated that the welds had a 24-hour delay before non-destructive examination
• No weld ovens or canisters were present, but the company welding inspector stated that the welders did not need a weld rod oven for this welding procedure
• The company welding inspector stated that the weld required a minimum preheat of 150°C and to be maintained above 100°C
• The company welding inspector had two temperature-indicating sticks, one for 120°C and the other for 200°C, to check that temperatures were within requirements
• The company welding inspector stated that for welding parameters he will take amperage, voltage, feed, and will time with a stopwatch how long a welder takes to do a length (usually 200 mm)
• The company welding inspector stated that a hard copy of the weld procedure being used was readily available (in his truck)
• Company representatives stated that the weld repair rate up to that date on the section was 5.03%
• Company representatives also stated that the maximum high/low on pipe fit-up is 1.6 mm

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 6 - Day 2 - Raven River Section – Non-Destructive Examination (KP 0+100)

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-14 16:21

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Inspections
• Welding Operations

Facility:

• EDSON M/L LOOP #4 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed an inspection crew calibrating out an automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) machine after examining a welded joint on some security piping (piping required just in case or due to pressure testing requirements)
• Workers stated that the AUT machine is calibrated in and out for every tie-in weld inspected
• Workers stated that for mainline that the AUT machine is calibrated in and out for the first 10 welds and then once every hour or every 10 welds, whichever comes first
• Workers displayed two examples of indication to CER inspectors and noted the acceptance criteria being used were:
  • First example was a length of slag about 12 mm long at a height of 1.8 mm between fills 1 and 2
  • The first example was deemed acceptable as a linear buried indication as per CSA Z662 Clause 7 by the workers
  • Second example was a lack of fusion under the cap that was at least 65 mm long
  • The second example was rejected as it exceeded the allowable dimensions as a linear buried indication as per CSA Z662 Clause 7
• The worker interpreting the AUT data stated that he was a CGSB Level 2 inspector and was able to recite Clauses 7.15.10.3.2 Linear surface indications and 7.15.10.3.3 Linear buried indications while reviewing the two example indications to CER inspectors

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 7 - Day 3 - Raven River Section Construction Office – Documentation Review

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-15 07:30

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Bends and Elbows
• Inspections
• Welding Operations
• Materials
• Coating
• Procedures
• Documentation
• Record Retention

Facility:

• EDSON M/L LOOP #4 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Company representatives stated that welding was completed by one contractor (Midwest) and welding inspection was completed by another contractor (Stanley Technical Services)
• CER inspectors chose a random weld, in this case TI-077, for documentation review
  • Company representatives produced the welding procedure data sheet (WPDS), a welding parameters record, a non-destructive examination summary record, an automatic ultrasonic daily weld inspection report, a visual welding inspection record that included identifying numbers for the associated welders, tickets for the associated welders, qualification records for the associated welders, daily mainline coating inspection record, coating inspection record specific for the weld, compliance declarations and coating qualification test records for the associated coating applicators, an authorization from the coating manufacturer to name specific contractor personnel competent in training brush and jeep repairs and a material test certificate for the pipes welded
  • a welding parameters record that was compliant with the WPDS with regards to pipe diameter, wall thickness, filler metal/electrodes class and size, amperage, pre-heat temperature, inter-pass temperature, voltage, travel speed, and heat input
  • a non-destructive examination summary record displaying that the weld passed AUT and the corresponding inspection contractor AUT report number
  • automatic ultrasonic daily weld inspection report displaying the acceptance criteria of CSA Z662-19 Workmanship (Clause 7), the corresponding pipe nominal diameter and wall thickness, the corresponding identifying numbers for the associated welders, and that the weld was acceptable
  • A visual welding inspection record that included identifying numbers for the associated welders, identifying numbers for the downstream and the upstream pipes and a matching WPDS
  • Tickets for the associated welders, as identified in the visual welding inspection record, were found to be valid, to match the WPDS with regards to process, parent material, pipe diameter, maximum deposited weld metal, filler metal/electrodes class
  • qualification records for the associated welders that were compliant with the WPDS with regards to process, parent material, pipe diameter, wall thickness, bevel angle, filler metal/electrodes class and size, amperage, voltage, travel speed and heat input
  • The coating inspection record specific for the weld contained the name of the coating system used, the job name, identifying numbers for associated coating applicators, joint number, the identifying number of the manufacturer’s qualified application procedure (MQAP) and inspection records as per CSA Z245.30 Clause 6.3
  • The coating qualification test records contained the applicator’s name, a set of unique numbers to identify the record, the MQAP used to qualify (which matches the coating inspection record specific for the weld), the date, the testing performed and signed off by a company representative as per CSA Z245.30 Clause 6.1.2.5
• CER inspectors chose a recent random date, in this case, 6 August 2022, for documentation review of a bend
  • Company representatives produced a daily bending inspection form record for 6 August 2022
  • The record included the bend number (13 total), pipe identification number, the corresponding heat number, the wall thickness, the pipe length, the bend degrees and minutes, the length of the bend, the nominal pipe size, the bend deflection, temperature at bend time and if the bend was acceptable
  • CER inspectors note that the documented bend deflections did not exceed 1.5° as per CSA Z662-19 Clause 6.2.3 a) ii)
  • The record also included the presence of a circumferential weld, the distance to the open end, the maximum and minimum ovality measure, the percentage of bend ovality, the presence of ripples, the size of ripples and ripple percent if applicable
  • CER inspectors note that the bend ovality ranged from 0.3 to 1.1%, all bends were deemed acceptable, and this follows CSA Z662-19 Clause 6.3.4.2
  • CER inspectors note that one bend did have a ripple of 4.00 mm, resulting in a ripple percent of 0.3% deemed acceptable, and this follows CSA Z662-19 Clause 10.10.8.3

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 8 - Day 3 - Raven River Section – Backfill at Pipe Tie-in (KP 5+350)

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-15 10:39

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Backfilling

Facility:

• EDSON M/L LOOP #4 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed compaction of backfill using a T bar connected to an excavator
• The ditch slope appeared to be within requirements
• Workers stated that 300 mm clean fill was being used around the pipe
• T bar compaction is applied until there is no significant movement downward on the T bar
• A spotter was used, and a company representative was present and watching the compaction activities

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 9 - Day 3 - Raven River Section – Screw Anchor Installation (KP 13+800)

Date & time of visit: 2022-09-15 11:47

Discipline: Integrity Management

Categories:

• Pipeline
• Procedures

Facility:

• EDSON M/L LOOP #4 (Pipeline)

Observations:

• Observed workers installing screw anchors on the pipe exposed in bell holes
• The ditch slope appeared to be within requirements
• Screw anchors were installed using a hydraulic motor connected to the end of the arm on an excavator
• Screw anchors are drilled into the soil to a minimum torque of 4,500 ft-lbs (6 100 N·m)
• If 4,500 ft-lbs (6 100 N·m) is not reached, couplings and anchor extensions are added until the minimum target torque of 4,500 ft-lbs (6 100 N·m) is met
• The maximum allowable torque of the screw anchors is 9,000 ft-lbs (12 200 N·m) and the hydraulic motor is set up to cut out roughly before 7,000 ft-lbs (9 500 N·m) via a hydraulic relief valve
• After reaching the required torque, the screw anchor is then pull-tested to 15,500 lbs (7 030 kg) for 60 seconds
• The pull test load is measured via an analog load cell that is connected between two slings and hooked onto the end of an excavator arm/bucket
• The load cell was marked with a calibration date of 2 February 2022 and would expire on 2 February 2023
• The sling assembly containing the load cell was visually inspected every time it was installed on the excavator and every time it was removed from the excavator
• Pass or failure of a pull test is judged visually – there will always be some movement as the soil re-settles, but a failed test has significant upward movement
• In the case of a failed pull test, couplings and anchor extensions are added until the minimum target torque of 4,500 ft-lbs (6 100 N·m) is met again
• Once the screw anchors are installed and tested, a strap is installed between a pair of anchors and contacts the pipe
• The pipe is marked by surveyors for where the anchor system should go, and workers stated that the placement of the strap has a tolerance ± 1m
• Workers produced an engineering drawing onsite that confirmed the 4,500 ft-lb (6 100 N·m) torque and the 15,500 lbs (7 030 kg) pull test

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: