The DPRs apply to ALL pipeline companies in Canada with facilities that cross provincial and national borders - regardless of their size, throughput, etc. If a pipeline carrying hydrocarbons crosses a provincial border, it is regulated by the NEB and the operating company must comply with the NEB Act and its Regulations made.

Designing a Damage Prevention Program tailored to an individual company’s specific operations can be challenging. HMA representatives Mike Sullivan and Mark Bradley have been directly involved in the ongoing development and evolution of the NEB’s Damage Prevention Regulations since the beginning and both were Chair and Vice Chair of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association’s Damage Prevention Working Group. As a result, they are keenly aware of what the NEB is looking for and how to stitch those requirements into existing company management systems, programs and procedures.

If your company requires assistance designing, developing or implementing its Damage Prevention Program, please contact us.

The NEB has been working on the DPRs for a number of years. Although it has been a while, there’s good reason for the duration of the journey, and there is some comfort in the fact that it is taking this long.

When the NEB began the process to replace the current Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Part I and Part II, it was doing so on the heels of the relative success it experienced with the development of the goal-oriented Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999; decidedly moving from prescriptive regulation to goal-oriented. Although the goal-oriented approach to the DPRs may have had the best of intentions, it has proved to be difficult in practice as highlighted by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association’s (CEPA) feedback to the NEB. (Click here to see CEPA’s comments).

Over the past decade, when work on the DPRs began, the damage prevention landscape has evolved dramatically in Canada and North America – to the point where, if the DPRs were introduced today, they would not parallel what is considered as the effective damage prevention legislation benchmark in the U.S. (State of Virginia Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act) and Common Ground Alliance Best Practices. Beyond the problems associated with the NEB’s desire for goal-oriented damage prevention legislation, the other anchors slowing its pace behind effective governance are the legislative ability of the Board to introduce effective enforcement governance within damage prevention regulatory text, the problems associated with governing mobile equipment crossings and the risks associated with opening the NEB Act to move those anchors.

Although language within sections 49 to 51 of the NEB Act appears to lend itself to enforcement and penalties associated with unauthorized excavation or construction near pipelines, the window to impose fines or penalties on third parties who perform unauthorized excavations near federally-regulated pipelines is unfortunately very small and the mechanisms to create regulations introducing effective enforcement are challenging. With regard to mobile equipment crossings over pipelines, a long-standing issue for landowners operating farm machinery over pipeline rights of way, the NEB’s proposed DPRs do little to address the matter beyond the provisions of section 112.2 of the NEB Act. In this case, the NEB cites an inconsistency between the English and French versions of this subsection which it believes effectively negates its ability to develop regulations governing mobile equipment crossings. Finally, there is a shared caution with regard to opening the NEB Act for review – a necessity in order to introduce language enabling the NEB Act to positively address enforcement, penalties and govern mobile equipment crossings. Unfortunately, the process isn’t selective; ie: specific sections of the Act can’t simply be opened for review and amended. Rather, if the Act is opened for review, it is opened in its entirety. 

Despite these hurdles, the NEB has spent a great deal of energy and effort over the past 10 years to develop the proposed regulations to their current status, and perhaps more importantly, has taken great strides in seeking stakeholder feedback. In doing so, it has built effective bridges within the Canadian damage prevention community; becoming more involved with the Common Ground Alliance efforts in Canada; co-championing the Canadian CGA movement with CEPA from a federal perspective, and openly participating in, and initiating, Damage Prevention legislation discussion forums. Those forums haven’t been easy for the NEB and its staff tasked with managing DPR development. They have been repeatedly challenged by damage prevention stakeholders and groups with similar interests to jointly consider and incorporate effective damage prevention legislation elements into the DPR – however long that might take. Given the DPRs haven’t been promulgated yet, there is still some optimism that perhaps the Board is considering that option. 

If you would like to learn how HMA Operational Services can assist your company manage its Damage Prevention accountabilities, please contact us.

MAJOR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY LEADERSHIP

HMA has the experience on staff required to guide clients through the maze of today’s regulatory application process. Experienced in federal and provincial projects, HMA employs industry leading environmental professionals providing 20+ years of senior technical and leadership support for the development and management of pipeline and power environmental applications.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Environmental management has quickly become a priority throughout many industries. Having a proactive environmental program can help put a company ahead in regards to managing potential liability, avoiding regulatory discipline and enhancing community relations. HMA’s Environmental Services has the ability to project manage environmental issues surrounding front end regulatory requirements and common operational situations. These two services tied together with HMA’s land capabilities provide a comprehensive package for our clients. With the ability to provide environmental support for well site regulatory applications through to facility and right-of-way operations, HMA can manage reoccurring environmental situations such as weed control, crop damage claims, noise issues and other environmental topics requiring immediate response.

POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND RECLAMATION MANAGEMENT

Complementing existing Land Services, HMA has the perfect arrangement of land and environmental skills and experience to take on the project management responsibilities of a post construction monitoring or reclamation program. Leveraging existing landowner relationships and knowledge of the local area, HMA environmental professionals can perform a post construction evaluation to understand landowner concerns, identify mitigative measures and implement solutions. 

For further information about HMA’s Environmental Services please contact our offices at: 1.866.412.5263 and ask for Chris Morrison.

In Canada, the CGA began with provincial Regional Partnerships – first in Ontario in 2003 and soon followed by partnerships in Québec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and in early March 2010; Manitoba’s request for Regional Partner status was accepted. The Regional Partnerships have effectively aligned with regional stakeholders and regulatory agencies developing Best Practices that are suited to their respective provinces while maintaining a view of neighbouring provinces and federal damage prevention legislation. About three years ago, however, the Regional Partnerships recognized a need to be more closely linked to one another to maintain consistency and a common voice on issues with national perspective. As such, the Canadian Common Ground Alliance emerged as an ad hoc committee comprised of leaders from each Regional Partnership and key stakeholders representing national damage prevention interests – namely, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association as well as several industry leaders.

The CCGA’s mandate is to manage Damage Prevention Issues of National Interest through a common voice. In those early years, Regional Partner leaders from BC, Ontario and Québec played dual roles leading their own Regional Partnerships while leading the efforts of the CCGA. Over the past three years, the CCGA has identified common strategic goals, engaged additional federal champions, developed and passed a governance model; and finally successfully held its first election for a Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary in late 2009.

The CCGA is closely linked with the CGA in the U.S. In fact, Bob Kipp, President of the CGA, has attended every CCGA meeting and has always maintained an open door and collaborative policy with Canada.

The CCGA has identified the following key initiatives as its primary Damage Prevention Issues of National Interest:

·         3 digit One Call dialing

·         One Call Legislation; and

·         Best Practice Harmonization

…and of course, achieving a Regional Partnership in every Province and Territory. Thanks to the dedication of our committee, federal champions and members across the country, we are making progress!

If your business has an interest in public safety and the prevention of damage to buried facilities, join your Regional Common Ground Alliance and become part of the solution.

Mike Sullivan – Chair CCGA (Vice-President, Operational Services, HMA Land Services Ltd.)

Dave Baspaly – Vice-Chair CCGA (Executive Director, BCCGA)

Derrick Saedal – Secretary CCGA (Executive Director, MCGA)

Jim Douglas – Treasurer CCGA (Executive Director, ORCGA)

HMA Land Services Ltd. is proud to be an active participant and member of the:

British Columbia Common Ground Alliance

Alberta Damage Prevention Council

Saskatchewan Common Ground Alliance

Canadian Common Ground Alliance

Cindy has knowledge and experience in the areas of project management, Alberta regulatory compliance, acquisition of crown and freehold lands, third party acquisition, and she has acted as project liaison between clients and outside organizations for a variety of projects over the years.  Her background and education in land administration, land agent and environmental areas offers a well-balanced and knowledgeable service to our clients as well as HMA’s internal resources.

In Alberta alone, the Independent System Operator (AESO) has outlined a Plan showing the need for $14.5 billion dollars expenditure in the transmission industry in the next decade sparking robust interest by generation developers, including thousands of megawatts of wind development to be added to the mix. In BC, the recent “Clean Power Call,” by BC Hydro has resulted in more than two dozen projects being awarded and more being considered.

Across western Canada, transmission and distribution companies as well as wind power developers have told us they need land and consultation services. HMA Land has the expertise and the workforce to help get these projects done. Our team of experts has the experience to secure option agreements and rights-of-way in numerous geographical areas; understanding the consultation requirements of transmission companies and giving wind developers the competitive edge they need.

We can also provide full Project Management helping our customers focus on their core business; saving time, money and regulatory headaches.

·         Surface land negotiation and acquisitions

·         Option acquisitions

·         Access roads and rights-of-way

·         Crown land acquisitions

·         Public involvement

·         Regulatory compliance

·         Project Management

·         Land administration, including document preparation

·         Damage settlement and dispute resolution

To get a better understanding of how HMA can help your project, please contact Doug Downs at ddowns@hmaland.ca or 403-385-4257

The Court found that “parties residing in the Protective Action Zone (PAZ) could be directly and adversely affected by an application for approval of a project to which the PAZ relates”. The Court also found that applicants must include residents within the PAZ in their participant involvement programs under ERCB Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules.

In the Errata to the June 2008 edition of Directive 056 you will find Tables 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, and 7.1 revised to reflect the changes to the participant involvement program requirements applicable to sour applications and it more accurately reflects the ERCB’s intent to adopt various participant involvement and emergency planning and response requirements. The Errata can be found at http://www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/directives/Directive056_errata_20091124.pdf .

In the Errata to the November 2008 edition of Directive 071: Emergency Preparedness and Response Requirements for the Petroleum Industry multiple corrections were made in the directive and can be found at http://www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/directives/Directive071_errata_20091124.pdf. Updated Versions 1.19  and 1.20 Beta of the ERCBH2S model have also been released.

ERCB EnerFAQs #1: What Is the Energy Resources Conservation Board? and EnerFAQs #13: Emergency Response Preparedness in the Energy Industry have been updated since October 2009 to reflect the corrections made to Directive 56 and Directive 71. All ERCB EnerFAQs can be found at http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_310_251_0_43/http%3B/ercbContent/publishedcontent/publish/ercb_home/public_zone/ercb_process/enerfaqs/

In an effort to steer the ongoing development of our Safety Program and provide knowledgeable liaison with our clients and projects, HMA recently hired Mike Judson as a full-time Safety Advisor.

Mike comes to HMA with 12 years of experience in the Oil & Gas Industry, working in the upstream sector with Ryan Energy Technologies Inc., a directional drilling service company, and most recently from Toromont Energy Systems Inc., a manufacturer and service provider of gas compression and processing packages.

Mike has developed, implemented and audited safety management programs and systems in Western Canada, as well as, for U.S. subsidiaries, meeting compliance with OSHA regulatory requirements. He has strong experience developing and delivering training programs, conducting accident investigations, and in managing and maintaining all elements of an effective, productive safety program. He received his accreditation in Safety & Environmental Technology from S.A.I.T.

Mike is adamant that the best way to achieve goals relative to safety management is to maintain open and effective two-way communication with our greatest asset, our employees.

Regardless of perceptions, the Damage Prevention Regulations apply to ALL pipeline companies in Canada with facilities that cross provincial and national borders - regardless of their size, throughput, etc. If a pipeline carrying hydrocarbons crosses a provincial border, it is regulated by the NEB and the operating company must comply with the NEB Act and Regulations made thereunder.

Designing a Damage Prevention Program tailored to an individual company’s specific operations can be challenging. HMA representatives Mike Sullivan and Mark Bradley have been directly involved in the ongoing development and evolution of the NEB’s Damage Prevention Regulations since the very beginning and both were Chair and Vice Chair of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association’s Damage Prevention Working Group. As a result, they are keenly aware of what the NEB is looking for and how to stitch those requirements into existing company management systems, programs and procedures. If your company requires assistance designing, developing or implementing its Damage Prevention Program, please contact us.

It wasn’t too long ago when pipeline public awareness programs, in many cases, began and ended with the actions of pipeline company land agents routinely interacting with landowners. The messages being delivered, lack of documentation and the propensity for messages to differ from one company representative to the next, were sketchy at best. For many years, however, these individual actions met the requirement to promote awareness of the presence of the pipeline to the public and inform them how to live and work safely near it but several key events changed that - some of those events, such as ongoing audits and inspections, were gradual while others, such as the Whatcom Creek incident in Bellingham, Washington, were immediate.

Fast forward 20 years and a lot has changed - for the better! Pipeline companies have come full circle - first asking “what will a public awareness program cost?” twenty years ago to asking “what is the cost of not promoting awareness?” today. Dedicated positions within the pipeline industry have emerged and evolved to manage public awareness programs and the collective experience and knowledge of the persons occupying those positions have matured their line of work into a front-line damage prevention and pipeline integrity tool.

But how to assess a public awareness program? How to determine effectiveness? Those questions have plagued the industry since the term “assess the effectiveness” appeared in National Energy Board (Canada) legislation in 1988 and in API 1162 in 2005.

Public awareness used to be referred to as not being “an exact science” but given the amount of data accumulated by individual pipeline companies and the industry as a whole, it certainly can be. Several key elements to assess program effectiveness are:

1. General assessment: Establish the goals of your company’s awareness program and determine whether it meets and supports those goals
2. In-depth assessment: Determine baseline public awareness data through a survey. Based on survey results, revise your awareness program to target areas that fall below program goals and expectations. After promoting your revised awareness program, re-survey your audience using the same questions to determine whether your company’s efforts have augmented awareness for those categories that were initially identified as ‘deficient’.

Clearly, these are high-level ideas to gauge and assess awareness but they will get you started. Once a company begins to assess available data, it will begin to understand and consider other avenues that enable program measurement and support.

HMA Operational Services can support your public awareness efforts through detailed gap analyses and program assessements to developing, implementing and managing your company’s public awareness program. Unlike other companies who appear to offer similar services, HMA’s Team consists of individuals who have unmatched experience as auditors and inspectors for federal pipeline regulators and who have also worked for the pipeline industry in Canada and the United States; designing, implementing, managing and defending awareness programs. In addition, we also employ knowledgeable and experienced Land Agents and field staff who are available to work directly with your company to carry out field activites related to your awareness program.

If you are interested in learning more about how HMA Operational Services can assist your public awareness goals, please contact us at opsservices@hmaland.com.