ARCHIVED – Results of consultation on the revisions to the CER Event Reporting Guidelines

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Results of consultation on the revisions to the CER Event Reporting Guidelines
1 16-Sep-20 Section 5.1.2. Change from:
"the release of a toxic substance in an area where there is a pathway to a receptor nearby"		 External – CEPA Accepted feedback with changes Change to:

"the release of a toxic substance in an area where a pathway to a receptor that has been impacted by a toxic substance"		 The CER agrees that making specific reference to the fact that the "pathway to a receptor" must be "impacted" adds clarity to the example.
2 16-Sep-20 Section 7.1 CEPA understands the need to change the terminology in section 7.1 from “Unauthorized Activity” to “Contravention of DPR-A” and recommend terminology within other related documentation (standards, procedures, permits, forms, etc.) be amended in a similar manner. External – CEPA Accepted feedback None The CER will review related documentation to ensure consistency among its regulatory documents.
3 16-Sep-20 Section 7.1 Recommended wording from CEPA:

Ground Disturbance: Contraventions of sections 10-11 of the DPR-A in relation to ground disturbance activities in the prescribed area, which extends 30 metres from each side of the centreline of the pipe. A “ground disturbance” is any activity that involves:
– any activity that disturbs the earth at a depth greater than 30 cm, unless it is cultivation in which case the disturbance of the earth can be up to 45 cm; or
– any reduction of the earth cover over the pipeline.

Existing wording:

Ground Disturbance: Contraventions of sections 10-11 of the DPR-A in relation to ground disturbance activities in the prescribed area, which extends 30 metres from each side of the centreline of the pipe. A “ground disturbance” is any activity that involves:
– any activity to a depth of 30 cm or more; or
– any reduction of the earth cover over the pipeline; or
– cultivation to depths of 45 cm or more.		 External – CEPA Accepted feedback with changes Ground Disturbance: Contraventions of sections 10-11 of the DPR-A in relation to ground disturbance activities in the prescribed area9, which extends 30 metres from each side of the centreline of the pipe. A “ground disturbance” is: any activity that involves:
– any activity to a depth equal to or greater than 30 cm; 
– any reduction of the earth cover over the pipeline to a depth that is less than the cover provided when the pipeline was constructed, Where the original depth of earth cover is unknown, any reduction of the current depth of earth cover; or
– cultivation to depths equal to or greater than 45 cm.		 While the proposed wording change was not accepted, the CER agrees that greater clarity could be provided around depths of ground disturbance with and without cultivation and made changes to that effect.
4 16-Sep-20 Section 7.2 CEPA Recommendation:

The proposed definition of damage is very broad and does not specifically define what “impacts” are contemplated in scenarios where unintended contact is made that does not cause damage requiring repairs. Accordingly, CEPA recommends the following amendments:

The CER considers “damage” as impacts caused by any person to an operational (including deactivated) pipe coating or body where those impacts were:
– unintended and to such an extent to cause a safety or integrity concern impacting the ongoing safe operation of the pipeline (e.g., a back-hoe contacting the pipe during an
integrity dig where immediate repairs to the pipe body are required; a 3rd party staking a fence post into a pipe where damage is observed; surface load stress from the operation of a vehicle or mobile equipment across the pipeline where company stress criteria are not met); or
– discovered during the course of operations or maintenance activities and are indicative
of contact with the regulated pipe (e.g., historical damage).

Existing wording:

The CER considers “damage” as impacts caused by any person to an operational (including deactivated) pipe coating or body where those impacts were:
– unintended (e.g., a back-hoe contacting the pipe during an integrity dig; a 3rd party staking a fence post into a pipe; surface load stress from the operation of a vehicle or mobile equipment across the pipeline); or,
– discovered during the course of operations or maintenance activities and are indicative of contact with the regulated pipe (e.g., historical damage).		 External – CEPA No changes made None The additional wording does not add clarity as it adds wording such as "safety or integrity concern" and "impacting ongoing operation of a pipeline" which is vague and difficult to define. The CER has directed companies to follow a precautionary approach to reporting (section 2.2. of the Guidelines). As such , the CER has taken a broader definition of "damage" to support the precautionary approach and to allow assessment of any damage to an operating pipeline. If it becomes clear that the definition is too broad, the CER can address that in future iterations of the Guidelines.
5 16-Sep-20 Section 7.2 CEPA Recommendation:

The proposed definition of damage is very broad and does not specifically define what “impacts” are contemplated in scenarios where unintended contact is made that does not cause damage requiring repairs.

If damage to a pipe is unrelated to a Contravention of DPR-A (e.g., historical damage that causes a safety or integrity concern impacting the ongoing safe operation of the pipeline), the event can be reported as Damage to Pipe only.

Existing wording:

If damage to a pipe is unrelated to a contravention of DPR-A (e.g., historical damage), the event can be reported as Damage to Pipe only.		 External – CEPA No changes made None See row 4.
6 16-Sep-20 Section 12.6 CEPA is of the view that the “narrative” required in the Contravention of DPR-A Preliminary Event Reports is better suited to be included in the Contravention of DPR-A Detailed Event Report. During the initial reporting timeframe few details are available except for the specific damage itself or specific Unauthorized Activity. Furthermore, CEPA recommends that the Guidelines build in more flexibility for circumstances where necessary information from certain parties specifically related to root cause is not available, as not all parties may be cooperative and forthcoming with information. This flexibility should also be incorporated into information requirements regarding preventive and corrective actions. External – CEPA No changes made None The CER agrees that identifying details related to a historical event or an event caused by an unknown party may be extremely difficult. The CER has ensured that there is a way for companies to report when Causes and Corrective and Preventative actions are not able to be identified.

It should be noted that a preliminary narrative can be provided at the initial report then updated when the report is made final.
7 16-Sep-20 Section 12.7 With respect to requirements for reporting historical damage to a pipeline, in many cases information related to parties involved will not be known. We recommend the Online Event Reporting System accommodate this potential for lack of information. External – CEPA No changes made None The CER agrees that gathering information on historical events can be problematic. OERS will allow companies to select "Parties Involved -> Unknown" and for causes there will be a "Cause Unknown" option where appropriate.
8 16-Sep-20 Section 12.7 CEPA also recommends that a clearer definition of “Populated Centre” and criteria on how they should be selected (e.g. size/population/etc.) by incorporated into the Guidelines. External – CEPA No changes made None The CER agrees that additional clarity could be provided related to "Nearest Populated Centre". Generally, the CER has been receiving sufficient information in this field. Additional guidance will be considered either on-screen in OERS or in the User Documentation.
9 17-Sep-20 Section 7.1 7.1 Contravention of DPR-A
“Construction of a Facility: Contraventions of sections 7-9 of the DPR-A in relation to the construction of a facility across, on, along, or under a pipeline (including the right-of-way). This category includes activities such as construction of structures/facilities (e.g., fences, decks, swimming pools) on a right-of-way, placement of structures/facilities (e.g., sheds, seacan storage containers) on a right-of-way, as well as storage / stockpiling of materials (e.g., woodpile, soil/berm) on a right-of-way; and”

As Skating rinks have been removed from the examples of structures/facilities., Enbridge would like clarification as to whether temporary above grade facilities, including skating rinks, are no longer considered contraventions (unauthorized activities). Enbridge has previously reported skating rink contraventions (unauthorized activities) to the CER in the past.
External – Enbridge Accepted feedback Added in skating rinks to the list of examples. Skating rinks and other temporary above-grade facilities remain contraventions. The example list is not intended to be exhastive. The CER will add wording to that effect and will add skating rinks back into the examples.
10 17-Sep-20 Section 7.1 As the CER Act defines a “ground disturbance” by setting out what does not constitute a ground disturbance, for the Guidelines to take the opposite approach and define what a ground disturbance is, requires careful consideration. For example, any activity “to a depth of 30 cm or more”, as set out in the Guidelines, could be interpreted to include excavations less than 30 cm. We suggest that the CER clarify the language set out in the Guidelines such that a ground disturbance only include any activity to a depth of 30 cm or greater and cultivation to a depth of 45 cm or greater. External – TCPL Accepted feedback with changes See row 3. See row 3.
11 17-Sep-20 Section 7.1 TC Energy also requests that the Guidelines clarify whether any activity to a depth of 30 cm or greater includes non-mechanical excavation. TC Energy suggests that the requirements around non-mechanical excavation versus mechanical excavation to a depth of less than 30 cm align more closely with the requirements in the Pipeline Rules (Alberta Reg 91/2005) under the Pipeline Act (Alberta) and specifically exclude hand excavation to a depth of less than 30 cm from ground disturbance. External – TCPL No changes made None The CER confirms that "any activity" includes both mechanical and non-mechanical excavation.The CER intentionally does not differentiate between "mechanical" and "non-mechanical" excavation as it is interested in "any activity" as noted in the regulations. The CER will retain this feedback if the Damage Prevention Regulations are revised in the future.
12 17-Sep-20 Section 7.1 A clarification between non-mechanical and mechanical excavation would also help provide guidance as the definition of ground disturbance in the CER Act includes any activity to a depth of less than 30 cm unless it results in a reduction of earth cover to a depth that is less than the cover provided when the pipeline was constructed. In our experience, this has been
confusing for landowners and other stakeholders (e.g., rail companies, municipalities, etc.) as the original depth of cover at pipeline construction is unknown to them. From TC Energy’s perspective the activity that is important to avoid is any mechanical excavation over the pipeline (other than cultivation up to 45 cm) and any non-mechanical excavation beyond 30cm.

Existing wording:

A "ground disturbance" is any activity that involves: ...

– any reduction of the earth cover over the pipeline		 External – TCPL Accepted feedback with changes A "ground disturbance" is : ...

– any reduction of the earth cover over the pipeline to a depth that is less than the cover provided when the pipeline was constructed. Where the original depth of earth cover is unknown, any reduction of the current depth of earth cover.		 The CER agrees that additional clarity can be provided specifically related to the scenario when the original depth of cover is not known. The CER has added wording to that effect. For notes on mechanical vs non-mechanical excavation, see row 11.
13 17-Sep-20 Section 7.1 TC Energy also notes that the prescribed area can extend beyond the pipeline right-of-way where the dimensions of the rightof-way are narrower than the prescribed area or depending on the location of the pipe within the right-of-way. As a result, a Contravention of the DPR-A can occur beyond the pipeline right-of-way. Explicitly indicating in the Guidelines that
Contravention of the DPR-A for ground disturbance can occur outside of the right-of-way will help to increase clarity on this point.		 External – TCPL Accepted feedback Footnote 9 page 18. The CER has added wording to the 2020 Revised Guidelines indicating the Prescribed Area may be larger than the Right-of-way.
14 17-Sep-20 Section 7.1 Finally, we suggest expanding the definition of “Agricultural Vehicle” to include commonly used light weight vehicles, pick-up trucks and ATV types as they can safely cross a pipeline without company approval as identified in the company’s Integrity Management Program. External – TCPL No changes made None The DPR-A does not specify that an "agricultural vehicle" must be used during an "agricultural activity" (DPR-A, subsection 13(2)). Since there is no basis in regulation for this definition, the CER cannot create one in the 2020 Revised Guidelines. The CER will retain this feedback for future regulatory changes to the DPR-A which could create a definition.
15   Section 7.2 TC Energy notes that the proposed definition of damage is wide reaching and does not specifically define which “impacts” are contemplated in scenarios where unintended contact is made that does not cause damage requiring repairs. We suggest adding to the definition of “Damage” to better explain the “impacts” as follows (changes underlined):

The CER considers “damage” as impacts caused by any person to an operational (including deactivated) pipe coating or body where those impacts were:
• unintended and cause a safety or integrity concern impacting the ongoing safe operation of the pipeline (e.g., a back-hoe contacting the pipe during an integrity dig where immediate repairs to the pipe body are required; a 3rd party staking a fence post into a pipe where damage is observed; surface load stress from the operation of a vehicle or mobile equipment across the pipeline where company stress criteria are not met); or,

This change would not require the reporting of minor damage, which does not impact safety or integrity of the pipeline, thereby increasing efficiency of reporting and the value of the data collected.		 External – TCPL No changes made None See row 4.
16 17-Sep-20 Section 12.6.2 The revised wording in section 12.6.2 adds the requirement to include, in the Contravention of DPRA-A Detailed Event Report, a root cause analysis with at least one immediate cause as well as at least one basic (root) cause. It is unclear what level of detail, beyond what is currently provided in the “reason for violation” heading under the current guidelines. TC Energy notes that it may be difficult to obtain detailed root cause information from certain parties, as not all parties may be cooperative and forthcoming. This concern also applies to the new requirements to provide preventive and corrective actions for Contravention of DPRA-A Detailed Event Reports. External – TCPL No changes made None See row 7.
17 17-Sep-20 Section 12.6.1 We also seek clarity on whether under section 12.6.1 the “nearest populated centre” includes project work camps or temporary work residences. Clarity on these items will ensure we can provide the correct information, and in sufficient detail, to meet the needs of the CER. External – TCPL No changes made None See row 8.
18 17-Sep-20 Section 12.7 TC Energy does not support the requirement for both preliminary and detailed reports to be submitted for historical damage. The information required to be provided in the preliminary report and the final report can be efficiently combined into one report. For historical damage, the necessary information can generally be obtained soon after the damage is discovered,
negating the need for a subsequent report. As it pertains to a historical event, it is unlikely that any information related to parties involved or detailed circumstances relating to the damage can be determined. As such, we recommend that the currently utilized report format for historical damage continue to be implemented for reporting historical damage.		 External – TCPL No changes made None The CER acknowledges that details surrounding the event may be sparse at this stage. Nonetheless, the CER requires some contextual narrative to support its triage of events and companies will be required by OERS to provide as much narrative as they have at the time of the report. OERS allows companies to revise narratives and all data at any time prior to Final Submission. In addition, the system does not force companies to wait 84 days, the initial and final submissions can be done in immediate succession which is effectively the same as a single report.
19 17-Sep-20 Section 12.7 We also note that current class/population dropdowns cite a 200 metre setback. As the class locations may not always be 200 metres under the new Class Regulations under CSA we suggest this be renamed the assessment area for clarity. External – TCPL Accepted feedback None The CER will change the current definitions as per CSA related to the class location assessment area in OERS.
20 17-Sep-20 Section 12.7 Finally, we request clarification on the definition of a “populated centre” and the criteria on how they are selected (e.g., size, population, etc.) so we can ensure to input accurately. External – TCPL No changes made None See row 7.
21 17-Sep-20 Appendix 1 While TC Energy is supportive of the proposed actions and descriptions for incidents, we recommend the addition of the
following proposed actions for unauthorized activities:

• Local/Regional Staff Communication: provide an option for communications to external stakeholders.
• Competency Assessment, Training and/or Retraining at more than one location: Incorporate a knowledge factor for
violators, such as the One Call process etc., training and education.
• Repair/Replacement made at more than one location: Provide for unauthorized activity specific repairs and
modifications		 External – TCPL Accepted feedback Added proposed wording. The CER agrees that the points summarized by TC Energy would be valuable. They will be added as options into OERS and the appendix of the 2020 Revised Guidelines.
Date modified: