Compliance Verification Activity Report: CV2122-151 - Trans Québec and Maritimes Pipeline Inc.

Overview

Compliance verification activity type: Field Inspection

Team:

• Inspector 2408
• Inspector 2391

Regulated company: Trans Québec and Maritimes Pipeline Inc.

Operating company: TransCanada PipeLines Limited

Province(s) / Territory(s):

• Quebec

Discipline(s):

• Damage Prevention

Rationale and scope:

Field inspection to verify compliance to the requirements contained within the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) and the CER Damage Prevention Regulations - Obligations of Pipeline Companies (DPR-Obligations) with a focus on third party oversight procedures. Field inspection to include document review and site inspection of active third party crossing activity.

Compliance tool(s) used:

• Information Request (IR) (1)

Facility details

Facilities:

• Mainline

Facility Types

• Pipeline
• Pipeline
• Pipeline right of way (ROW)

Life-cycle Phases

• Operations

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)
• Plans And Procedures
• Standard Operating Procedure or Plan (SOP)
• Crossing and Encroachment Procedure Canada
• Standards
• CSA Z662-19 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems

Observations (no outstanding follow-up required)

Observation 1 - Damage Prevention Program Post-Inspection IR

Discipline: Damage Prevention

Categories:

• Damage Prevention Program
• Manage and Mitigate

Facility:

• Mainline (Pipeline)

Observations:

As part of the scope of this field inspection which includes document review, the CER IOs require information pertaining to the TQM Damage Prevention Program as required pursuant to section 47.2 of the OPR. 
 

Compliance tool used: Information Request (IR)

Regulatory requirement:

• Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR)

Relevant section(s):

• • 47.2 A company shall develop, implement and maintain a damage prevention program that anticipates, prevents, manages and mitigates damage to its pipeline and meets the requirements set out in section 16 of the National Energy Board Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations — Obligations of Pipeline Companies.

Company action required:

• Refer to the Documents Section in the link provided for the full text of this Pre-Inspection Information Request.
• Indicate which documents within your company’s Damage Prevention Program or related program address the applicable regulatory requirements.
  • Include details such as document name and applicable sections and/or page numbers.
  • Please do not attach documents at this time. All responses must be entered into the template provided. 
• Follow the instructions provided in the Documents Section to upload and submit your company response by the specified due date.

Due date: 2021-09-16

Date closed: 2021-09-20
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 2 - Oversight of third party contractor excavation for watermain facility installation

Date & time of visit: 2021-09-08 08:45

Discipline: Damage Prevention

Categories:

• Monitoring and Reporting
• Records
• Patrols, Inspection and Field Observations
• Pipeline Identification
• Signs
• Locate Markings
• Damage Prevention Program
• Processes and Standards
• Manage and Mitigate
• Vehicle or Mobile Equipment Crossings
• Authorization and Consent
• Temporary Crossings
• Ground Disturbance
• Authorization and Consent
• Facility
• Authorization and Consent

Facility:

• Mainline (Pipeline)

Observations:

​Inspections Officers (IOs) arrived to the 3rd party construction site accompanied by TC Energy representatives:

• The TQM pipe was already exposed upon arrival at the worksite. IOs were informed that it was exposed by hydrovac the day before (7 September 2021). 
• The Pipeline Technician (TQM Inspector) stated that he had observed the hydrovac activities and supervised the pipe exposure. He also showed pictures taken during the exposure.
• IOs observed the TQM pipe at this location to be approximately 2 metres below grade and IOs were informed that the TQM pipe was 24 inches in diameter.
• TQM Inspector told the IOs that they had entered the excavation to inspect the TQM pipe and pipe coating condition prior to the PVC watermain facility installation which is planned to cross below the TQM pipe at a 90 degrees angle. 
• The TQM pipe was observed by IOs to be wrapped in a layer of geotextile to protect the coating and then wrapped with corrugated plastic conduit to further protect the pipe from any sloughing of material or contact with the PVC watermain facility.
• The TQM pipe was exposed and a small trench had been excavated below the TQM pipe to provide clearance of 60 cm between the top of the proposed 12 inch PVC watermain facility and the bottom of the TQM pipe. The TQM Inspector also explained to IOs that there are specific distance requirements for separation between the pipe and other buried infrastructure based on the type of infrastructure (for example, electric lines at a certain voltage required greater separation than a line with no electricity or lower voltage).
• IOs observed the installation of a watermain elbow (blue steel) and a piece of PVC watermain south of the TMQ pipe (prior to crossing under the pipe, within approximately 3 metres). The TQM Inspector mentioned that the backfilling material directly over the PVC watermain facility was crushed stone 0 - 3/4 inch. IOs observed backfilling of the PVC watermain facility where crushed stone was placed over the PVC watermain facility and compacted with soil compaction tools (i.e. vibratory tamping rammer). Treated plywood and blue warning/identification tape was also installed over the PVC watermain facility, followed by soil and further compaction with the backhoe.
• IOs were informed that backfilling material to be used over the TQM pipe is sand in order to protect the coating, and that hand vibration tools would be used to compact the sand around the edges of the TQM pipe prior to backfill. The CER were told that this is necessary to eliminate the potential of creating ovality of the pipe due to the soil pressure once the pipe is backfilled.
• Due to weather conditions (i.e. rain), the completion of the PVC watermain facility installation and backfill of the TQM pipe were not completed during the CER inspection.
• IOs observed the TQM Inspector demonstrate critical thinking by observing all of the activity occurring on the site and how that activity may impact the pipe. For example, a soil compaction roller was to be used to compact soil on top of the watermain but within approximately 3 metres of the exposed TQM pipe. The ground conditions were very wet and slippery which the TQM Inspector recognized as a potential safety risk to the TQM pipe should the machine lose traction and slide into the pipe. The TQM Inspector instructed the 3rd party to either not use that equipment or to ensure it was anchored to prevent it from sliding into the TQM pipe. The 3rd party chose not to use the roller and instead used a tracked backhoe to compact the soil. Another example of critical thinking, while not part of an instruction checklist given to the 3rd party, is when the TQM Inspector advised the 3rd party that no smoking was permitted in the excavation in the event there was a leak. When the IOs mentioned to the TQM Inspector that they observed a member of the 3rd party crew smoking or vaping in the excavation, the TQM Inspector immediately went and spoke with the 3rd party foreman.
• The TQM Inspector mentioned to IOs that he participated in the 3rd party’s morning tailgate meetings, however, did not sign on to the tailgate documentation as the 3rd party did not request it. The TQM Inspector told the IOs that the marker colour significance were explained to the 3rd party.
• The TQM Inspector told the CER that they provided specific instructions about their permitted activity while working around the TQM pipe and the actions that must be taken should contact with the TQM pipe be made.
• The TQM Inspector explained to the IOs their authority and comfort level in exercising that authority in situations that required work to be halted should there be any concerns observed.
• IOs spoke with the TQM Inspector about their rights as an employee covered under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) even though they were on a 3rd party construction site. For example, the TQM Inspector should not enter any excavation and has the right to refuse entering any excavation that does not meet the CLC. In this particular case, when the IOs arrived on site, there was a ladder placed in the excavation, however, it was not secured nor extending 3 rungs above the excavation to ensure safe egress as required by the CLC. The TQM Inspector mentioned this to the 3rd party and an appropriate ladder was installed to ensure safe egress.
• The TQM Inspector told IOs that they do telephone check-ins with their colleagues as part of their work-alone process.
• IOs observed that the TQM Inspector remained on site until the excavation was fenced off on all sides with the use of snow fence and t-posts to prevent further access. The CER were also told that the site was not easily accessible to the greater public as the larger area was fenced off due to other construction activities occurring as part of the project.
• IOs observed steel plates on the right-of-way (ROW) in an area away from the excavation that allowed for the crossing of vehicles and heavy equipment for the watermain construction project.
• IOs observed signage on the surrounding ROW to be in good condition and spaced appropriately. The ROW in and around the excavation was located and marked with pink flags.
• TQM Inspector told the IOs that learnings from various field activities are shared amongst their team as much of their knowledge comes from experience gained while conducting oversight activities.

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 3 - Document review and process discussion

Date & time of visit: 2021-09-08 13:00

Discipline: Damage Prevention

Categories:

• Monitoring and Reporting
• Patrols, Inspection and Field Observations
• Damage Prevention Program
• Manage and Mitigate
• Vehicle or Mobile Equipment Crossings
• Authorization and Consent
• Locates and Information
• Locate Requests
• Ground Disturbance
• Authorization and Consent
• Facility
• Authorization and Consent
• Pipeline Identification
• Locate Markings

Facility:

• Mainline (Pipeline)

Observations:

• The TQM Inspector explained the TC Energy process once a 3rd party crossing application is made via the TC Energy Canadian Third Party Crossings Application Portal or by way of a locate request made to the One Call Centre. The following was noted by the IOs: 
  • Any 3rd party vehicle or mobile equipement crossing, ground disturbance and/or facility construction within the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) require both a Fully Executed Crossing Agreement administered and issued by Land Crossings as well as a Stake-Out Report/Ground Disturbance Approval from the Region. 
  • Ground disturbance activities within the prescribed area but outside the ROW can be authorized at the field/regional level via a signed Stake-Out Report/Ground Disturbance Approval from the Region issued to the requesting 3rd party (Region Administered Approval). IOs were informed that this field approval represents formal permission for the activity, equivalent to the Fully Executed Crossing Agreement issued by Land Crossings. This process was verified by the IOs in reviewing the Crossing and Encroachment Procedure Canada. 
  • As an example, the TQM Inspector explained that they contact the 3rd party to make arrangements to locate the line and review the formal crossing agreement application submitted to the 3rd party by Land Crossings to verify 5 specific questions on the approval checklist.
  • The TQM Inspector explained that part of their role during excavation activities is to generate a Facility Crossing As Built Information Form that would be retained once the crossing is completed in addition to the completed Pipeline Inspection Report.
• ​The IOs reviewed the following documentation with respect to the PVC watermain facility installation:
  • The TQM Inspector's documented request for safe excavation pressure at the excavation location.
  • The subsequent engineering report stamped and signed which contained the safe excavation pressure for a 25 feet section of the TQM pipe. The engineering report also contained recent In-Line Inspection (ILI) data and historical data for that specific GPS location of the TQM pipe.
  • Original and revised survey drawings of the PVC watermain facility and road crossing:
    • IOs were informed that during the approval phase for the 3rd party project, the operator's staff identified concerns with the original proposed crossing plans as the original plan had the crossing at a location where the TQM pipe sloped down and turned. As a result, the 3rd party revised their proposed plans to ensure there was lower risk to the TQM pipeline.
  • Info-Excavation locate ticket dated 2 August 2021.
  • Fully executed and signed crossing agreement for the paved road crossing over top of the TQM pipe.
  • Fully executed and signed crossing agreement for the PVC watermain facility installation under the TQM pipe.
  • The completed and signed Stake-Out Report/Ground Disturbance Approval associated with the PVC watermain facility installation:
    • Written safety information was found under the "Avertissement" section of this document as well as additional instructions ("instructions supplémentaires").
    • This document cross-referenced the crossing agreement issued and is provided to the 3rd party after the locate request.
    • A top-view sketch was also included as part of this field approval.
  • A partically-completed construction monitoring form was also reviewed. This document allows the TQM Inspector to record field observations, sketches and other key information (e.g., depth of cover) and notes throughout the crossing activities, including whether the 3rd party complied with the requirements of the DPR-Authorizations for the duration of the construction activities near the TQM pipe.
  • A blank copy of a Pipeline Inspection Report. IOs were informed that this report is filled out prior to backfilling the TQM pipe and is completed only in instances when the pipe is fully exposed and would not normally be completed where smaller hydrovac sight holes are created.

Compliance tool used: No compliance tool used

Observation 4 - Line locate for ground disturbance within the prescribed area

Date & time of visit: 2021-09-08 14:00

Discipline: Damage Prevention

Categories:

• RoW Maintenance
• Vegetation
• Locates and Information
• Locate Requests
• Ground Disturbance
• Authorization and Consent
• Pipeline Identification
• Locate Markings

Facility:

• Mainline (Pipeline)

Observations:

• IOs accompanied the TQM Inspector responding to a locate request that was received earlier in the day for an excavation that was being conducted outside of the ROW but within the prescribed area:
  • IOs observed and listened as the TQM Inspector spoke with the 3rd party backhoe operator about the excavation project and the scope of work to be undertaken; in this case, trenching to create channels for water drainage on vacant land that is planned for development.
  • The TQM Inspector consulted documented as-built information for this location, which included the placement of the pipe within the ROW at this location as well as ROW measurements. According to the documentation, the ROW was 23 metres wide at this location, with the TQM pipe being 8 metres from the south edge of the ROW.
  • IOs observed some pink and yellow locating flags that were still in place from a previous line locating and marking. 
  • Tall phragmites (approximately 6 feet) were observed on the ROW.
  • The TQM Inspector demonstrated to IOs how to locate the pipeline using a radiodetection locator (RD8100) by induction method and the process taken in order to locate and mark the pipeline (yellow pin flags) and edge of the ROW (pink pin flags). The entire length of pipeline around the worksite could not be located at that time due to time constraints and access difficulties caused by the tall phragmites. The TQM Inspector mentioned that this would therefore be completed another time as agreed with the backhoe operator.
  • As the activity was taking place in the prescribed area but outside the ROW, the Crossing and Encroachment Procedure Canada applied where regional approval was required via the Stakeout Report and Ground Disturbance Approval (no Fully Executed Crossing Agreement required in this instance). 

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: