Filing Manual – Guide AA – Post Certificate or Order Requirements


Information is provided to validate the applicant's approach to the proposed facility and to facilitate the Board's audit and inspection processes.

AA.1 Filing Requirements – Engineering and Technical

Pipe Joining Program

1. Two weeks prior to the start of construction, provide a pipe joining program if the proposed project involves:

  • pipe, other than auxiliary systems pipe, carrying any substance other than sweet natural gas, oil or refined products;
  • the joining of any non-routine material;
  • non-routine joining procedures; or
  • a pipe grade higher than 483 MPa.

Pressure Testing and Leave to Open

2. Two weeks prior to pressure testing, provide a pressure testing program if exemption has not been granted from section 47 of the NEB Act (i.e., leave to open).

3. One week prior to the start of operations, make an application for leave to open if exemption from section 47 of the NEB Act has not been granted (see Guide T for details).

Construction Safety Manual

4. Four sweeks prior to the start of construction, submit a construction safety manual pursuant to OPR subsection 20(1) or PPR subsection 27(1). Refer to section 1.6 if this manual has been previously filed with the Board.

Emergency Procedures Manual

5. Two weeks prior to the start of operations, submit an emergency procedures manual and any updates that are made to it pursuant to OPR subsection 32(2) or PPR paragraph 35(b) and (c).

  • Refer to section 1.6 if this manual has been previously filed with the Board. File any updates required to incorporate the current project.

Gas Processing, Sulphur or LNG Plant Facilities

6. If the proposed project involves gas processing, sulphur or LNG plant facilities, submit a program for the design, operation and abandonment of pressure vessels and pressure piping at the processing plant pursuant to PPR section 9. Also include provisions for document handling and record retention.

AA.2 Filing Requirements – Post Construction Environmental Monitoring Reports

1. Provide reference information including:

  • the NEB order or certificate and condition number under which the report is being filed;
  • the year of reporting (e.g., 6 month, 1 year);
  • pipeline specifications (e.g., outside diameter of pipe, length of pipe, and product being transported); and
  • a map of the region displaying the location of the pipeline as it was built in relation to provincial, territorial or national boundaries, and the nearest town.

2. Identify on a map, or with reference to a map, the locations of the following, as appropriate, in relation to the location of the pipeline as constructed:

  • sites requiring ongoing monitoring (e.g., steep slopes, erosion-affected areas, areas that have weed problems, specific wildlife habitat, trees, rare plant transplant and donor sites or riparian areas);
  • watercourse crossings, as well as any locations in which offsetting has been completed as required under a Fisheries Act Authorization. These locations are also to be provided in an electronic spreadsheet format and should include the name of the pipeline, name of the watercourse, type of watercourse, fish presence, the UTM location including zone in NAD83 datum and the crossing methodology implemented for each crossing;
  • wetlands;
  • access control features;
  • temporary work space boundaries and access roads;
  • planted tree bands;
  • areas of identified landowner concerns such as subsidence or soils issues; and
  • other project-specific sites of importance or interest.

3. Provide a discussion of the effectiveness of mitigation, reclamation, or compensation measures that were committed to and implemented. If measures were not successful, provide a description of what type of remedial measures were applied to accomplish the goals of mitigation or reclamation.

4. Identify the outstanding environmental issues, the plans for their resolution and any discussions held with interested parties regarding the issues.

Additional information...

Additional information...

It is only necessary to address outstanding issues in subsequent reporting years. Once an issue has been reported as being resolved, it no longer needs to be addressed in subsequent reports unless the issue redevelops. Each issue should be demonstrated as being resolved in a report prior to being removed from the list in a subsequent report.

5. Provide contact names and phone numbers of company representatives should there be questions from NEB staff about the report or future inspections by NEB staff that need to be arranged.


Report Content

These information requirements are intended to guide companies in developing post-construction environmental monitoring reports (post-construction report). Companies are encouraged to submit the listed information in an appropriate format such as:

  • text;
  • tables;
  • diagrams; or
  • photographs.

The initial post-construction report, also known as the as-built report, should be the most detailed post-construction report. The as-built report should focus on the issues from construction, and should be used as a building block upon which additional post-construction reports are based. The subsequent post-construction reports should focus on the applied-measures and status of issues since the last post-construction report filing.

Photos can be used throughout the report to give the reader a better understanding of the issues, the state of the RoW, and the comparison between pre- and post-construction conditions.

The locations of specific environmental features and issues should be identified so that NEB or company employees can easily locate areas on the ground. The locations may be marked on the map or may be identified in a list with reference to a map (e.g., alignment sheets). Locators such as latitude and longitude or Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates should be used, and may be used in combination with kilometre- or mile-posts for use in flyovers.

The as-built report should discuss the mitigation implemented during construction and reclamation, and should include specific detail on unique or novel mitigation applied. Subsequent post-construction reports should discuss measures implemented since the submission of the previous post-construction report and update the status of issues and the effectiveness of mitigation, as appropriate.

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements

Guidance for specific information that could be provided for biophysical and socio-economic elements is provided in Table AA-1. To determine which biophysical elements should be addressed, refer to Table A-1 in Guide A, Section A.2.

Highlight any new or innovative mitigation used and provide an evaluation of its success.

Table AA-1: Specific Information for Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements

Specific Information for Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements
Biophysical and Socio-Economic Element Information
Physical environment
  • Confirm the mitigation that was applied for issues related to topography, permafrost, or acid-generating rock.
  • Discuss the results of any monitoring related to these issues.
Soil and soil productivity
  • Identify areas where substantial admixing, erosion or compaction has occurred and discuss the mitigation applied.
  • Discuss any wind and water erosion control measures that were undertaken.
  • Identify and discuss any contamination encountered, and any proposed remediation.
  • Discuss the methods of re-vegetation (e.g., natural recovery or seeding) and where the methods were applied along the RoW.
  • Evaluate the success of re-vegetation (e.g., percent cover achieved, species diversity and survival of rare plant transplants).
  • Provide labelled photos including location, date and direction of photo comparing the RoW to surrounding vegetation. Random permanent photo reference points representative of the different habitats and re-vegetation methods along the RoW could be used.
  • Discuss whether any weeds have been identified, their type and locations, and proposed control measures.
  • Identify the seed mix(es) used and in which location, and provide copies of seed certificates.
  • Discuss and compare agricultural productivity on and off the RoW
  • Identify areas where remedial seeding is required and discuss plans for this seeding.
Water quality and quantity
  • Identify watercourse crossing construction method(s) used in the field.
  • Provide locations of temporary structures and confirm temporary structures have been removed (e.g., bridges or sediment fences).
  • Provide labelled photos for sensitive crossings, such as fish bearing streams, or those streams that may affect public health such as community watershed crossings. Photos should include upstream, downstream, left-bank, right-bank, pre-construction and post-construction views if possible.
  • Discuss the results of any water quality or quantity monitoring that occurred during the project.
Fish and fish habitat
  • Further to the information provided for “Water Quality and Quantity”, describe mitigation that was applied at each fish bearing watercourse as well as any Fisheries Act Authorization offsetting measures implemented.
  • Identify the location of sensitive sites identified during construction (e.g., spawning sites) and discuss the mitigation used at these sites as well as the residual effects.
  • Identify and discuss the specific crossing method and mitigation measures applied at each wetland.
  • Discuss the removal or maintenance of permanent or semi-permanent access structures to ensure proper drainage and flow through the wetlands.
Wildlife and wildlife habitat
  • Provide the location of sensitive sites identified during construction or through the application process (e.g., denning sites or evidence of nesting).
  • Discuss the impacts to these sites that occur from construction and associated mitigation measures.
Species at Risk or Species of Special Status
  • Identify and discuss any Species at Risk or Species of Special Status observed in the project area during project activities.
  • Describe the mitigation that was applied with respect to Species at Risk or Species of Special Status.
Air quality
  • Confirm the mitigation that was applied with respect to air quality.
  • Discuss the results of any monitoring related to air quality.
Acoustic environment
  • Confirm the mitigation that was applied with respect to noise.
  • Discuss the results of any monitoring related to noise.
Heritage resources
  • Discuss heritage sites that were previously known sites or identified during construction and the mitigation applied during construction to protect them.
Navigation and navigation safety
  • Discuss any project effects on navigation and navigation safety along the right-of-way and the mitigation which has been implemented.

Summary Tables – Examples

Table AA-2 is an example of a summary table of outstanding issues. Table AA-3 is an example of a summary table of discussions with interested parties about outstanding issues.

Table AA2:
Example of a Summary Table
of Outstanding Issues

Example of a Summary Table of Outstanding Issues
Biophysical Element Location Outstanding Issue Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Proposed Action and Schedule
Watercourse Big Hill Creek (latitude and longitude, UTM) Creek bank erosion Input of fine sediments to water column affecting fish reproduction Install silt fence, June 20XX
Vegetation John Doe's Farm (legal land location, and latitude and longitude or UTM) Soil compaction Poor root penetration resulting in poor growth Deep rip the land,
June 20XX

Table AA-3:
Example of a Summary Table
of Discussions
Regarding Outstanding Issues

Filtering Questions for Determining Appropriate Level of Detail for an Application
Biophysical Element Location Contact Information
Results of Discussion
Watercourse Big Hill Creek (latitude and longitude, UTM)

Contacted Jane Smith from Alberta Environment (phone xxx xxx-xxxx) on 15 March 20xx. Ms. Smith was satisfied with the proposed action to address the creek bank erosion.


John Doe's Farm (legal land location, and latitude and longitude or UTM)

Met with John Doe on 24 November 20xx to discuss compaction. Mr. Doe was not entirely convinced of the effectiveness of the mitigation approach suggested, but agreed that it is a good first step. He would like to see the results of the change in compaction of the soil prior to determining whether he will be satisfied with the approach.
Date modified: