National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) – Final Audit Report of the Trans Mountain Pipelines ULC. (TMPU) – Pipeline Patrol Activities – OF-Surv-OpAud-T260-2016-2017 01

NEB Assessment

Appendix I focuses solely on the various types of patrol activities conducted pursuant to the legal requirements. An evaluation of the patrol activities in the context of the management system and the process requirements is provided in Appendix II of this report.

1.1 Inspecting and Monitoring

The Board expects companies to have an established, implemented and effective process for inspecting and monitoring the company’s activities and facilities to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the protection programs. In order to verify the implementation of the right-of-way (ROW) monitoring activities, the NEB attended a selection of aerial and vehicle ROW patrols conducted in both urban and rural settings.

Given the scope of this audit, these processes and protection programs were not reviewed for compliance or adequacy. Rather, the Board conducted a focused audit of the company’s pipeline patrol activities which is typically part of the surveillance and monitoring program. Patrol activities are one method used by companies to monitor the effectiveness of the protection programs. The review in this appendix relates directly to the patrol activities that TMPU had in place at the time of the audit. The Board noted that at the time of the audit, TMPU was conducting the following types of ROW patrols:

• Ground Patrol – TMPU has established ground patrol schedules for certain sections of its ROW in Vancouver and Edmonton based on levels of third party activity.
• Aerial Patrol – TMPU’s rights of way are patrolled by helicopter. The Aerial Right of Way Patrol scope of work outlines the various patrol routes and frequency. Each flight has an observer who is responsible for identifying potential hazards and communicating issues to the ground crews in each region. These contract employees use GIS information obtained from TMPU to identify areas of known activity along the ROW and alert each area if other activities are present. The observer communicates with TMPU staff when the helicopter is entering their area. The scope of work for these inspections focuses on the identification and reporting of potential unauthorized activity, but TMPU also demonstrated that it uses its aerial patrol to identify and monitor natural hazards through established communication practices.
• Natural Hazards – TMPU’s Pipeline Integrity Group has contracted an engineering firm specifically to monitor areas where the potential exists for naturally occurring hydrotechnical, geotechnical and seismic hazards along its rights-of way. Internally referred to as the “natural hazards” program, it manages the proactive identification, documentation, monitoring and resolution of geotechnical issues. Reports are issues they submit include site observations, photographs and depth of cover measurements and recommendations for further inspection, mitigation and additional aerial or ground patrol monitoring. This program includes:
  • an annual two week ground patrol/inspection of the entire pipeline system
  • ongoing support for the identification, monitoring and resolution of any “natural hazards”
  • investigations of events on the ROW related to natural hazards (e.g. landslides)
• Depth of Cover / Cathodic protection survey – Depth of cover is monitored by the Integrity Team. While the scope of this audit is limited to patrol activities, the Board notes that TMPU has scheduled other activities in order to monitor its depth of cover and cathodic protection. It has retained contractors to undertake regular cathodic protection and depth of cover surveys. Depth of cover data is entered into the GIS system for ongoing monitoring.
• Integrated Vegetation Management – Parts of TMPU’s ROW is located in areas where vegetation that may potentially interfere with the visibility and accessibility requires ongoing monitoring and must include environmental considerations related to species at risk. At the time of the audit, this program document dated January 2016 was marked “Final Draft”. Also, vegetation management is described in TMPU’s implemented Right of Way Maintenance Standard.
• Signage Maintenance Strategy – As part of its ROW maintenance, TMPU staff photograph and geotag each of its ROW markers. Inspections conducted during the audit verified that signage was present in accordance with its procedures and CSA requirements.

Conclusion

Given the scope of the audit and the documents reviewed, the Board did not find any issues of non-compliance for this aspect of the requirement.

1.2 Evaluating adequacy and taking corrective action

The Board also requires companies to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the protection programs and for taking corrective and preventive actions if deficiencies are identified. During the audit, the Board reviewed records of various types of patrol activities as part of its surveillance and monitoring program. TMPU was able to demonstrate that it has established practices to identify, evaluate, track, communicate and resolve issues related to hazards and potential hazards on the rights –of –way identified on patrols.

Although the Board determined that the internal communication plan was not yet fully implemented (see sub-element 3.5 of Appendix II), TMPU provided documentation demonstrating that it has established practices for the communication and tracking of ROW issues. At the time of the audit, TMPU provided records related to its Natural Hazards Program, depth of cover and unauthorized activities to demonstrate that these issues were identified by patrols and then communicated to the appropriate team for evaluation and tracking and resolution. Based on the review of the records, the Board is satisfied that TMPU demonstrated it had practices in place to meet this requirement.

Conclusion:

Given the scope of the audit and the documents reviewed, the Board did not find any issues of non-compliance for this aspect of the requirement.

NEB Assessment

2.1 Monitoring of adjacent lands (DPR–O s. 16(b)

The National Energy Board Damage Prevention Regulations – Obligations of Pipeline Companies (DPR-O) requirements came into effect on 19 June 2016. The DPR-O requires that companies develop a Damage Prevention Program which includes ongoing monitoring of any changes in the use of the land on which a pipeline is located and the land that is adjacent to that land. Guidance provided by the Board indicates that the monitoring of lands adjacent to the ROW should include the monitoring of changes in the use of the land on which a pipeline is located and the adjacent land is required in order for a company to effectively identify hazards and manage the risks related to pipeline damage prevention over time.

At the time of the audit, TMPU provided a draft copy Land Use Monitoring Standard for review. In interviews, TMPU staff stated that this standard was developed to reflect the requirements of the DPR-O. As this standard had not been approved or implemented at the time of the audit, it was not reviewed during the audit to verify its adequacy or compliance to the DPR-O.

Conclusion

Although TMPU provided its draft Land Use Monitoring Standard for review, this document was not implemented at the time of the audit. As a result, the Board has determined that TMPU is in non-compliance with DPR-O s.16 (b). The Board requires that a CAP be developed to address this non-compliance.

2.2 Observing conditions and activities (CSA clause 10.6.1.1)

The Board reviewed TMPU’s procedures and report samples for both its aerial and ground patrols. TMPU was able to demonstrate that it has established several types of patrol activities to monitor its rights of way and that these patrols resulted in the identification of potential hazards on the rights of way such as unauthorized third party activity. In addition to its Damage Prevention Program, TMPU has integrated its patrols into its Integrity and Environmental Management programs in order to identify and monitor natural hazards such as areas of potential scour and soil slides. TMPU has long term contracts with expert third parties to conduct ongoing monitoring of geo-hazards.

The aerial patrol report templates contain reference to third party activity, evidence of leakage and unsatisfactory surface conditions on/ adjacent to the pipeline. A review indicates Ground patrol fills out a Stakeholder contact form which includes a list of “issue types” including damage prevention and vegetation management, its Pipeline Procedures includes a list of “any indication of activities or events”.

During the review of the report templates used for both ground and aerial patrol, the Board found that the templates do not explicitly include the potential hazards as identified in TMPU’s procedures or that are listed in CSA. Instead these reports stated either “no sightings or any incidents of concern” or listed potential unauthorized activities. Although the procedures for both the aerial and ground patrol include lists of potential hazards that should be monitored during patrols, the reports from these patrols do not confirm with documentation that an assessment of the various potential issues has occurred.

The Board is of the view that reporting only what is out of the norm, or by exception, does not typically allow for an adequate demonstration of the ongoing monitoring of developing trends that can affect the safety and operation of the pipeline. Also, this type of reporting does not provide documentation to confirm that an assessment of the potential issues as identified in CSA has occurred during the patrols.

Conclusion

Due to the fact that both the aerial and ground patrols report by exception, that is, only note when an issue is present, TMPU could not demonstrate that it is documenting its assessment of all the issues as noted in CSA Z662-15 clause 10.6.1. As a result, the Board has determined that TMPU is in non-compliance with this requirement. The Board requires that a CAP be developed to address this non-compliance.

2.3 Frequency of inspections (CSA clause 10.6.1.2)

TMPU’s procedure document titled The Conducting Right of Way Ground Patrol, section 2.3 outlines the considerations for scheduling of patrol activities. The list includes the majority of the factors listed in CSA for consideration. TMPU has included a list of factors to be considered in its determination of pipeline patrol frequency that reflects the requirements outlined in CSA in order to address the factors for its ROW (Section 2.3.2 of its DP Manual- Pipeline protection procedures.)TMPU’s list includes: environmentally sensitive areas, land use, population density, access, level of construction activity and topography. Upon review of TMPU’s list of factors, the Board is of the view that TMPU has established a list of criteria for the scheduling of patrols that is appropriate to its system and therefore meets the intention of CSA 10.6.1.2.

TMPU also demonstrated that these factors are considered in a regular review for determining ongoing suitability of pipeline patrol schedule for both ROW patrol and natural hazard patrols. The Board also notes that the Damage Prevention Program tracks the number of kilometers patrolled and number of issues identified in its annual reporting to Senior Management to measure the impact and effectiveness of these activities.

TMPU’s has established an aerial patrol frequency for each section that varies from weekly to monthly depending on time of year. In addition to its regular patrols, TMPU also dispatches extra patrols to monitor issues such as potential natural hazards and environment concerns.

Conclusion

Given the scope of the audit and the documents reviewed, the Board did not find any issues of non-compliance for this aspect of the requirement.

NEB Assessment

3.1 Notification of locations regarding low risk agricultural activity (DPR–O s.7)

The Board issued the Order MO-21-2010, Exemption Order Respecting Crossings By Agricultural Vehicles Or Mobile Equipment on 22 December 2010. This Order required that regulated companies identify areas of their rights-of-way where low-risk agricultural crossings may jeopardize the safe and secure operation of the pipelines. With the release of the DPR-O, requirements for the monitoring of agricultural lands to promote safe operations are incorporated into section 7.

During the audit, TMPU provided records to demonstrate that its identification and resolution of issues related to depth of cover was applied to agricultural lands. TMPU was able to demonstrate that it has an ongoing depth of cover monitoring process that is managed by the Integrity Group with connections to its Damage Prevention Program in cases involving agricultural lands. The process for the identification and resolution of these issues is outlined in its Depth of Cover Survey and Reporting Procedure, released in July 2016. This procedure includes the steps to resolve issues of depth of cover roles and responsibilities for the Integrity, Damage Prevention and Lands Teams. For the purposes of this audit, TMPU demonstrated that it has established a proactive depth of cover monitoring practices which includes agricultural lands.

Conclusion

Given the scope of the audit and the documents reviewed, the Board did not find any issues of non-compliance for this requirement.

3.2 Reporting unauthorized activities (DPR-O s. 11)

TMPU’s Pipeline Protection Manual, outlines its procedure for reporting incidents and unauthorized activities to the Board. Through interviews and record review, the audit verified that TMPU staff and contractors follow this procedure when they discover unauthorized activities on the ROW during patrols process in place to report instances of potential unauthorized activities within the organization as well as to the NEB. Also demonstrated that these unauthorized activities are documented and reported to the Board, communicated throughout the organization and tracked to resolution. It also demonstrated that it was tracking, trending and reporting annually on the unauthorized activities to Senior Management.

Through document and record reviews and interviews in the regions, the Board confirmed that TMPU staff and contractors were aware of the inspection and related reporting requirements particularly as they relate to potential mechanical damage from unauthorized third party activities.

TMPU outlines its unauthorized activity reporting in section 3.1 of its Pipeline Protection Manual. Unauthorized activities noted during patrol are reported in the stakeholder engagement form. Follow-up actions taken are also documented in the stakeholder engagement form. Internally, unauthorized activities are tracked and reported by region quarterly. The Board verified that TMPU has been identifying, tracking and reporting issues of unauthorized activity in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

Given the scope of the audit and the documents reviewed, the Board did not find any issues of non-compliance for this requirement.

NEB Assessment

The Board requires the company to appoint an accountable officer. The accountable officer must be given appropriate authority over the company’s human and financial resources for ensuring that the company meets its obligations for safety, security and protection of the environment.

On 9 May 2013, Trans Mountain Pipelines ULC. (TMPU) submitted written notice to the Board indicating that its President, Ian Anderson, had been appointed as the accountable officer. In its submission, TMPU confirmed that its accountable officer has the authority over the human and financial resources required to meet the Board’s expectations.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that TMPU has established the role of the Accountable Officer who has signed a letter confirming that he has the responsibility and authority with respect to sub-element 4.1 Inspection, Measurement and Monitoring. Based on the review conducted and considering the scope of this audit, the Board did not identify any issues of non-compliance in relation to sub-element 1.1 – Leadership and Accountability.

NEB Assessment

TMPU provided its Policy on Environment, Health and Safety (EHS), as signed by the President dated November 2012. During the audit, the Board noted that the policies were available to employees and part of the management system. The policy statements include commitments to not harming people and protecting the environment. It also includes the circumstances under which disciplinary action for those that knowingly engage in or condone environmental health or safety violations.

The Board also noted that the EHS policy has been integrated by TMPU’s employees and contractors when conducting patrols. During the interviews with staff and contractors, they referred to their personal accountability for the safety of the pipeline when performing patrol-related activities. These employees and contractors described personal authority and obligation to intervene with third parties to ensure that the procedures were being adhered to during activities along the rights-of-way.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that TMPU has the policies to address the above expectations as they relate to inspection and monitoring. Based on the review conducted and considering the scope of this audit, the Board did not identify any issues of non-compliance in relation to sub-element 1.2 – Policy and Commitment.

NEB Assessment

The Board expects companies to have an established, implemented and effective process for identifying and analyzing all hazards and potential hazards. In addition, the Board expects companies to establish and maintain an inventory of hazards and potential hazards. Although the review of the hazard identification process is outside the scope of this audit, the Board examined the methods and the extent to which the identification, tracking and evaluation of hazards was reflected within TMPU’s patrol activities.

Identifying Hazards and Potential Hazards

In order to demonstrate that it has integrated its patrol activities with hazard identification, TMPU provided its risk register for review. At the time of the audit, this register was managed and maintained manually to track and assess types of hazards and potential hazards. It includes the inherent and residual risk and identifies the mitigating measures in place.

Through interviews with staff and records provided for review, TMPU demonstrated how hazards or potential hazards identified by patrols are initially documented on the Integrity Hazard Identification forms. Once reported, hazards are evaluated, assessed and assigned for monitoring. If mitigation is required, it is tracked through work orders. New types of hazards are added to the Pipeline Protection Risk Register for evaluation and tracking. For the Damage Prevention Program, a form is completed and sent to Integrity in Calgary to assess the hazard and determine the follow-up action required. If this was a new hazard, it would be added to the risk registry. 

TMPU also provided documentation to demonstrate how the identification of hazards within the protection programs has resulted in changes to the patrols. For example, extra patrols were recommended by the Natural Hazards program to monitor areas along the ROW impacted by the Spring freshet. Upon further assessment of the hazard, Spring patrols were added to the schedule for every May and June.

Analysis of Hazards and Potential Hazards

At the time of the audit, TMPU staff demonstrated that hazards identified on the ROW were reported through the distribution of patrol reports and the risk register assessment.

TMPU has several programs that are linked to the identification of hazards on its ROW. These include:

• Ground / Aerial patrols of urban, rural and remote areas. Patrol reports are distributed throughout the protection programs for review. During the audit, TMPU provided documentation demonstrating that it had conducted an analysis of the occurrences of potential unauthorized activities reported on or near its ROW to senior management. Included in the analysis, many of these occurrences were discovered during patrol activities. This information was communicated to the Public Awareness Program.
• The Natural Hazards Program – Based in the Integrity Program, this program tracks hazards and potential hazards that arise because of terrain as well as those that develop due to seasonal conditions along the ROW such as annual freshets and the impact of spring thaw on water crossings.
• Cathodic Protection Survey/ Depth of Cover – Based in the Integrity Program, this program manages surveys of the ROW that are conducted and obtains depth of cover information which is stored in the GIS system for ongoing monitoring.

The Board is of the view that TMPU has established patrol activities and has linked those activities to its hazard identification and risk evaluation processes.

Conclusion:

Based on the review of documents provided, the Board noted that TMPU was able to demonstrate that it has established patrol activities as controls for hazards on the ROW including natural hazards. The audit found that TMPU conducts frequent and various types of patrols, as discussed in Appendix I of this report.

NEB Assessment

The TMPU pipelines are operated by Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) in accordance with KMC’s Integrated Safety and Loss Management System (ISLMS). Section 10 of the ISLMS document describes KMC’s process for monitoring of legal requirements for the Trans Mountain Pipelines. TMPU also provided the Legal Requirements Standard. Although TMPU’s overall compliance monitoring processes was not in scope for this audit, the legal list as it relates to the patrol activities was requested for review. TMPU provided its legal list which included the titles of :

• Federal and provincial acts and regulations;
• Board Certificates and Orders;
• CSA Standards; and
• Other international standards.

At the time of the audit, TMPU was updating its process for maintaining its legal list to increase its integration into the ISLMS and to break it down to the requirement level. TMPU estimates that this project will be complete and implemented in 2017. Also, TMPU was in the process of updating its procedures to reflect the requirements of the Damage Prevention Regulations.

Conclusion:

TMPU demonstrated that it is tracking and listing legal requirements and that its list included NEB Orders and Certificates. However, the Board noted that, at the time of the audit, the legal list as it pertains to patrols is maintained at an insufficient level of detail. Therefore this list is non-compliant with OPR 6.5(1) (h). As a result, the Board requires TMPU to develop a CAP to address this deficiency.

The Board notes that the legal list affects several sub-elements within the management system as it relates to the patrol activities. By addressing the deficiencies related to the maintenance of the legal list, this list will impact related processes such as Internal Audits and Document Control.

NEB Assessment

TMPU provided its 2016 Integrated Safety and Loss Management System goals, objectives and targets (GOTs). Through documentation provided for the audit, TMPU demonstrated that it has established GOTs for the prevention of releases and the communication of hazards on the ROW at a corporate level which it measures at the program level. For the Damage Prevention Program, there are GOTs which are specifically related to patrol activities, such as number of kilometers patrolled per year and number of unauthorized activities identified. These program goals are reflected in goals measured for staff performance.

In its 2015 and 2016 Safety and Loss Management Dashboards, TMPU illustrated its objectives and targets related to the identification, communication and resolution of issues identified on patrol. These goals are given targets that are reported and measured annually. In addition, at the team level, TMPU tracks its signage maintenance by tracking work orders and number of kilometers patrolled.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that Trans-Mountain has GOTs that are specifically linked to its patrol activities. Based on the review conducted and considering the scope of this audit, the Board did not identify any issues of non-compliance in relation to sub-element 1.2 – Goals, Objectives and Targets.

NEB Assessment

The Board expects companies to follow a documented organizational structure that enables it to meet the requirements of its management system and its obligations to carry out activities in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the public, company employees, the pipeline, and protection of property and the environment. The documented structure shall enable the company to determine and communicate the roles, responsibilities and authority of the officers and employees at all levels.

During the audit, TMPU indicated that its Damage Prevention group is primarily responsible for patrol activities. According to the organizational chart provided, staff and contractors that conduct patrols report to the Manager, Damage Prevention and Public Awareness through supervisors for the Western and Central Regions respectively. Interviews confirmed staff are provided with job descriptions that include responsibilities regarding patrols. Also, the contractors were aware of their responsibilities outlined in the Statement of Work which is reviewed annually.

Along with a documented organizational structure, the Board expects companies to demonstrate an ongoing ability to sustain its activities. The Board requires that companies demonstrate that the human resources required to establish and maintain its activities are sufficient to meet operational and regulatory requirements based on an annual documented evaluation of need.

For patrol activities, TMPU includes the assessment of staff levels within its documented Damage Prevention Annual Work Plan. This plan includes an assessment of the various activities performed by the Damage Prevention Team and was introduced based on the OPR requirements.

Based on the interviews and the documentation reviewed, the Board is of the view that TMPU demonstrated it has been conducting its evaluations of resource levels for patrols since 2012. At that time, based on an assessment of activity near the ROW, the Damage Prevention Team outlined the need for full-time pipeline patrollers to address the requirements for increased ground patrols in both operating regions.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that TMPU has an Organizational Structure that meets the above expectations as they relate to its patrol activities. Based on the review conducted and considering the scope of this audit, the Board did not identify any issues of non-compliance in relation to sub-element 2.4. Organizational Structure, Roles and Responsibilities.

NEB Assessment:

The Board requires that companies have an established, implemented and effective process for developing and implementing corrective, mitigative, preventive and protective controls associated with the hazards and risks. Considering that the scope of this audit is limited to the assessment of patrol activities, and based on the information provided during interviews and related inspections, the Board is of the view that TMPU conducts patrol activities as part of its suite of controls for hazards on the ROW.

As discussed in Appendix I of this report, TMPU conducts various types of patrol activities as a control measure to monitor several types of hazards relating to activities and conditions on the ROW. TMPU’s ROW maintenance also includes sign maintenance and vegetation management on its ROW. Inspections conducted during the audit verified that signage was present and visible in the areas observed including parks, residential neighbourhoods and industrial areas.

The Board also requires companies to establish and implement a process for coordinating and controlling the operational activities of employees and other people working with or on behalf of the company so that each person is aware of the activities of others and has the information that will enable them to perform their duties in a manner that is safe, ensures the security of the pipeline and protects the environment.

Although patrol activities are managed by the Damage Prevention Program, they are also leveraged to monitor hazards identified by other programs, such as the Natural Hazards Program. TMPU has also utilized its aerial patrols to obtain information regarding environmental issues such as caribou migration. Another example of program integration is the ROW maintenance that involves input from the patrols, the Environment Team and Compliance Team to ensure the needs of each group are met with regards to brushing activities.

Conclusion

The audit verified that TMPU has a process that includes patrols activities that meets the above expectations. Based on the review conducted and considering the scope of this audit, the Board did not identify any issues of non-compliance in relation to sub-element 3.1Operational Control– Normal Operations.

NEB Assessment:

Given the scope of this audit is focused on patrol activities, the Board’s review of this sub-element was limited to considering the role of patrol activities during upset conditions. Considering that patrol activities are only relied on for the identification of potential upset conditions, the Board verified that TMPU has implemented procedures for identifying and communicating potential upset conditions on the ROW. Interviews with staff and contractors as well as a review of the documentation confirmed procedures for the communication of imminent hazards on the ROW are in place and understood by staff and contractors.

Conclusion

Based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any issues of non-compliance in relation to sub-element 3.2 Operational Control- Upset or Abnormal Conditions.

NEB Assessment

TMPU’s Management of Change is described in its Operational Change Management Standard which is part of its Integrated Safety and Loss Management System. Due to the scope of this audit, this process was not reviewed for adequacy or compliance to the OPR.

Specific to patrols, TMPU advised, that depending on the type and nature of the change requested, the Change Management Request Form triggers a series of reviews by stakeholders across the organization. For example, once the changes to documentation have been approved, the process includes that older versions are removed and replaced. During the audit, TMPU was able to demonstrate that this process was applied to its patrol procedures.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that TMPU has a Management of Change (MOC) process that is triggered by regulations that impact ROW monitoring and surveillance. As a result, based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any areas of non-compliance with sub-element 3.3 Management of Change.

NEB Assessment

The Board requires companies to have processes for developing competency requirements and training programs that provide employees and other persons working with or on behalf of the company with the training that will enable them to perform their duties in a manner that is safe, ensures the security of the pipeline and protects the environment. Given that patrol activities are the scope of this audit, the Board focused its assessment of the training program and competency evaluations on the expectations for staff and contractors who conduct patrols.

At TMPU, staff training for patrol activities is contained within the Knowledge and Experience Enhancement Program (KEEP) and a Business Unit Training matrix is used to capture training requirements for Pipeline Protection staff. TMPU provided a description and skill packets for the three modules that relate to ROW maintenance. Pipeline Protection staff complete several skills packets including:

• Conducting Right-of-Way Patrols
• Knowledge of the KMC Right-of-Way
• Demonstrate Knowledge of Pipeline Protection Zones

TMPU also provided its “KMC Environmental Awareness” training which includes a knowledge evaluation for participants. The course is designed to introduce employees to aspects of the Environmental Protection Plan and key environmental issues associated with its operations. Competence of the patrollers is confirmed through testing and reviewed during performance reviews.

For aerial patrol, TMPU has outlined its expectations in the scope of work which is reviewed annually. In addition, pilots and observers attend a “Yearly- Aerial Patrol Training / Review” which includes a presentation of potential hazards and the expectation for reporting and communication. On occasion, TMPU staff will also monitor contract pilots and observers during the year but written evaluations are not completed. At the time of the audit, TMPU advised that it was in the process of developing its process for the evaluation of competence of its contractors who conduct patrols.

In reviewing the training, the Board included the expectation outlined in CSA clause 10.6.1.1 that requires “particular attention” be given to several possible activities and conditions on the ROW. In section 2.2 of Appendix I of this report, the Board clarified that it expects companies to report on the presence of these conditions and activities. With this requirement in mind, the Board is of the view that in order for these conditions and activities to be identified by patrol and reported as required, companies should demonstrate that these topics are addressed in training. At the time of the audit, TMPU could not confirm that its suite of training for patrollers and contractors has not been evaluated to ensure that it enables staff and contractors to identify the conditions and activities as listed in CSA clause 10.6.1.1.

Conclusion:

While TMPU demonstrated that it has developed and implemented a process for identifying, tracking and managing training for staff and contractors conducting patrols, and that it could not confirm that its training provides patrol staff and contractors with the adequate awareness to identify the issues as listed in CSA. The Board also found that TMPU has not established and implemented a process for identifying and verifying competencies of its contractors with respect to its patrol activities. As a result, the Board finds TMPU in non-compliance with NEB OPR s. 6.5(1)(k). The Board requires TMPU to develop a corrective action plan to address the described deficiencies.

NEB Assessment

During the audit, TMPU provided documentation and records indicating that it has external and internal processes for communicating information and processes relating to its ROW maintenance and surveillance program.

Throughout the audit, TMPU provided documentation to demonstrate that it was communicating issues by practice. TMPU was, however, unable to demonstrate a communication process or procedure for the internal communication of issues related to legal requirements, to staff and contractors who conduct patrols. In addition, the audit reviewed several patrol reports and noted that, through its Natural Hazards monitoring program as well as its Depth of Cover monitoring, TMPU was communicating issues noted on patrol to the appropriate protection program to manage and resolve. Section 8 of the scope of work for aerial patrols outlines the Kinder Morgan’s expectation for during patrols. Within the Damage Prevention Team, communication occurs through regular meetings and an annual pipeline protection forum.

Throughout this audit, the Board noted that TMPU demonstrated that informal communication between teams is occurring regarding issues on the ROW. TMPU provided several examples of environmental, damage prevention and integrity related issues that were initially reported by patrols and subsequently assigned for resolution to another team. In addition examples of the protection programs communicating issues to be monitored by patrols were also provided. While TMPU’s internal communication of these issues appears consistent and pervasive, the Board noted that many of these communications occur by practice in emails rather than as the result of a documented communication plan. Also, it is unclear whether these emails become part of the official files or if these emails constitute adequate documentation of the communication of these issues in accordance with its communication plan.

At the time of the audit, TMPU was implementing an Internal Communication Standard at the corporate level and communication plans at the team level as part of its ongoing ISLMS implementation. TMPU provided its Internal Communication Standard document for review. TMPU indicated that, at the time of the audit, it was in the process of implementing its internal communication plan for the Damage Prevention Team.

Although the external communication plan is largely the responsibility of the Public Awareness and Lands departments, and therefore outside the scope of this audit, the Board included aspects of external communication for safety on the ROW by reviewing the contents of TMPU’s external website. The Board noted that TMPU has posted information related to its patrols as well as safety information relating to call before you dig.

Conclusion

While TMPU demonstrated that there is communication of issues concerning the ROW from the patrollers to the programs as well as from the programs to the patrols, it did not demonstrate that this communication was occurring as the result of a documented communication plan.

Based on the Board’s evaluation of TMPU’s communication practices against the requirements and the scope of this audit, the Board has determined that TMPU is non-compliant with NEB OPR s. 6.5(1)(m). TMPU will have to develop corrective actions to address the described deficiencies.

NEB Assessment

The Board expects to have an established, implemented and effective process for identifying the documents required for the company to meet its obligations to conduct activities in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the public, company employees, the pipeline, and protection of property and the environment. TMPU’s Integrated Safety and Loss Management System, Section 5, the Controlled Document Standard, is the overarching document management procedure. According to the document, this standard describes the requirements for the maintenance and management of controlled documents including those relating to ROW surveillance. Due to the scope of this audit, the Board focused its review on the examination of procedures and templates related to patrol activities which are managed by the Damage Prevention Team.

At the time of the audit, TMPU was able to demonstrate:

• it was undertaking annual reviews and updates to its procedures;
• regulatory changes did trigger a review of procedures;
• staff are trained on the controlled document standard;
• controlled documents were accessible to staff on a shared drive;
• procedures relating to ROW patrol were subject to the guidelines of the document hierarchy;
• the procedures related to ROW patrols were subject to the Operational Change Management Standard; and
• changes to the documentation were communicated to staff.

Upon examination of the content of the procedures, however, the Board noted deficiencies noted elsewhere in this audit will impact the procedures and templates related to patrol activities. At the time of the audit, the Board noted deficiencies within the patrol procedures that relate to the failure to adequately maintain its legal references. For example, patrol procedures were not updated to reflect the changes in the DPR. For example the Pipeline Protection Management System (September 2012) still refers to the NEB Pipeline Crossing Regulations which were repealed in June of 2016. Also, it appears to have not been updated for CSA Z662-11, or 15 or the update to the OPR in 2012.

In consideration of the fact that this audit is a review of the impact of the management system on the patrol activities, the Board has determined that the root cause of this deficiency is directly related to TMPU’s lack of integration of its legal list which is discussed in section 2.2 of this appendix. Once the legal list is complete it will be integrated into the documents in accordance with the document control standard.

Also, deficiencies were noted in Appendix I of this report relating to a lack of documenting the potential hazards as listed in CSA. The Board is of the view that addressing that deficiency will impact the templates used by staff and contractors conducting patrols.

Conclusion

The audit verified that TMPU Document Control process that applies to the procedures related to pipeline patrols. As a result, based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any areas of non-compliance with sub-element 3.6 Documents and Document Control.

NEB Assessment

See Appendix I – Pipeline Patrol Audit – For the evaluation of sub-element 4.1

 

NEB Assessment

The Board expects companies to have an established, implemented and effective process for reporting on hazards, potential hazards, incidents and near-misses, and for taking corrective and preventive actions. Given the focused scope of this audit, the Board evaluated the processes described in the expectations for this sub-element only as they related to patrol activities.

Reporting on hazards, potential hazards, incidents and near-misses

Through document and record reviews, the Board confirmed that TMPU had implemented a procedure for reporting and tracking third party unauthorized activities as well as natural hazards such as landslides and erosion. Patrol reports are distributed to several operational teams including Damage Prevention and Integrity. TMPU demonstrated that in the event a potential unauthorized activity is reported by patrols, field personnel are dispatched to conduct a follow-up investigation to determine if damage to the facilities or environment had occurred. Also, TMPU demonstrated that issues relating to integrity and environmental hazards were communicated to the Integrity Team to manage and resolve.

Trending and Analysis

Given that the scope of this audit is limited to patrols, the Board reviewed which, if any aspect, of the patrol activities were subject to periodic review. Based on interviews and documentation provided, the Board verified that TMPU was conducting trending and analysis of information obtained by patrols such as the identification of unauthorized activities by patrols. In its annual internal reporting, TMPU also includes the number of kilometers patrolled, the number of issues identified by patrols as well method of detection of issues on the ROW. It uses these statistics in order to monitor ongoing effectiveness of the patrol method, timing and frequency. These trends are communicated to various levels through quarterly reporting and at annual meetings of the pipeline protection staff.

Conclusion

The audit verified that TMPU has an established process to evaluate and track issues to resolutions that includes those issues identified by patrols. As a result, based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any areas of non-compliance with sub-element 4.2 Investigations of Incidents, Near-misses and Non-compliances.

NEB Assessment

The Board expects companies to have an implemented and effective quality assurance program for the management system and for each protection program, including a process for conducting regular inspections and audits and for taking corrective and preventive actions if deficiencies are identified. Considering the scope of this audit, the Board only evaluated the quality assurance program as it applies to the patrol activities.

During the audit, TMPU provided its 2015 Damage Prevention compliance audit which was conducted by an expert third party. The findings from this audit were documented and managed by the Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) Compliance Department with corrective reviews and updates taking place quarterly. Although this audit was conducted prior to the OPR requirement for an audit of the Damage Prevention Program, the Board notes that the protocol for this audit did not include OPR section 39 (Surveillance and Monitoring Program) or applicable CSA requirements.

Despite the fact that the audit protocols applied to the internal audit were incomplete, the Board has determined that TMPU has an internal audit process in place that includes an assessment of its patrol and damage prevention-related activities. Furthermore, the Board has determined that the root cause of this deficiency is directly related to TMPU’s lack of a legal list which is discussed in section 2.2 of this appendix. Once the legal list is complete and integrated into the quality assurance program, it should form the basis for protocols for future audits.

Conclusion

The audit verified that TMPU has an established process to conduct internal audits and tracks findings to resolution. The Board also notes that the CAP for sub-element 2.2 of this report will address the deficiencies with the audit protocols. As a result, based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any areas of non-compliance with sub-element 4.3 Internal Audit.

NEB Assessment

TMPU’s Damage Prevention team manages the records relating to patrols including the patrol reports to reflect the requirements of the corporate Records Management Standard. Records managed by the Damage Prevention team include third party permits and one call request verifications as well as patrol reports. The Records Management Matrix outlines the record owners, the types of records, and the review frequency assigned to each type of record. According to matrix, these reports are kept on a shared drive to be accessible to staff and are the subject of an annual review. There is also a monthly review of patrol records to verify that all observations have been noted and assigned for follow-up. As part of this audit, the Board reviewed several records related to unauthorized activities on the ROW. TMPU was able to provide files that included the assessment of the event and photos as well as any follow-up that occurred.

Records relating to the Natural Hazards program, including issues noted and monitored by patrols, are managed by a third party in the Cambio database. This information is accessible to the TMPU Integrity Team to facilitate ongoing monitoring.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that TMPU has an established process to record its patrol activities. As a result, based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any areas of non-compliance with sub-element 4.4 Records Management.

NEB Assessment

The Board expects companies to have an established, implemented and effective process for conducting an annual management review of the management system and each protection program. Given that the scope of this audit is focused solely on patrol activities and its links to the management system, the ISLMS was not reviewed or evaluated as part of the current audit.

During this audit, the Board verified that several sub-elements of the management system were linked to the patrol activities including:

• an EHS policy that reflects OPR requirements;
• an annual report as required by the OPR that includes statistics related to patrol activities;
• the inclusion of the Damage Prevention Program into its overall Quality Assurance Plan.

Also, TMPU was able to demonstrate that Senior Management is providing active oversight through its Quality Assurance Plan and GOT dashboards. TMPU demonstrated that its Quality Assurance Plan includes the Damage Prevention Program (which includes patrols) by having an expert third party audit in 2015. Also, the Corporate GOT dashboards included aspects of the patrol activities such as number of kilometres patrolled and unauthorized activities reported which demonstrates that these targets were reviewed at the Senior level. Also, TMPU was able to demonstrate that its evaluation of need included consideration of patrol activities in its overall determination of staffing levels.

Conclusion:

The audit verified that TMPU has an established process to conduct an annual management review which included information related to ROW surveillance and patrol activities. As a result, based on the scope of this audit and the information reviewed, the Board did not identify any areas of non-compliance with sub-element 5.1 Management Review.