{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320111002W","title":"TRANSCANADA NORTHERN BORDER INC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-03-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.328(a)(1), 192.328(a)(2), 192.807.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111002w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111002w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111002w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320111002W","body":"Warning Letter involving TRANSCANADA NORTHERN BORDER INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.328(a)(1),  192.328(a)(2),  192.807. The case was opened on 2011-03-21 and is reported as closed as of 2011-03-21. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320111002W_Warning Letter_03212011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111002W/320111002W_Warning%20Letter_03212011.pdf\n\n320111002W_Warning Letter_03212011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111002W/320111002W_Warning%20Letter_03212011_text.pdf\n\n320111002W_Warning Letter_03212011_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 21, 2011\nMr. Vern Meier\nVice President, US Pipeline Operations\nTransCanada\n717 Texas Avenue\nHouston, TX, 77002-2761\nCPF 3-2011-1002W\nDear Mr. Meier:\nDuring the second half of 2010, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nactivities related to the TransCanada - Bison Project near Dickinson, North Dakota.\nDuring the course of our construction inspections, the need for improvements in the quality\nassurance plan, including personnel qualification, were identified. While no construction\nactivities affecting safety appeared to have gone uncorrected prior to placing the Bison pipeline\nin service, it was apparent that an improved quality management system, if properly\nimplemented, would reduce the need for remedial work and improve overall quality during\nconstruction.\nTherefore, as a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of\nthe Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violation(s) are:\n1. § 192.328 Additional construction requirements for steel pipe using alternative\nmaximum allowable operating pressure. For a new or existing pipeline segment to\nbe eligible for operation at the alternative maximum allowable operating pressure\ncalculated under § 192.620, a segment must meet the following additional\n\n\n\nconstruction requirements. Records must be maintained, for the useful life of the\npipeline, demonstrating compliance with these requirements:\n(a)(1) Quality assurance. The construction of the pipeline segment must be done\nunder a quality assurance plan addressing pipe inspection, hauling and stringing,\nfield bending, welding, non-destructive examination of girth welds, applying and\ntesting field applied coating, lowering of the pipeline into the ditch, padding and\nbackfilling, and hydrostatic testing.\nThe document management procedures established for the project were not\nfollowed completely. Various inspection procedures were modified throughout\nthe project, but not all construction inspectors received these documents. Assuring\nall personnel are working with the most current procedures is an important aspect\nof quality assurance to maintain consistency and repeatability.\nThe quality assurance plan in place for project was basically limited to inspection.\nIn addition to inspection activities the plan should have included elements\nwhereby “non-conformances”, when identified, would be analyzed to understand\nthe root causes so that improvements could be made to processes or procedures to\nprevent recurrence. Additionally, lessons learned from previous TransCanada\nconstruction projects should be considered when developing a quality assurance\nplan.\nThe quality assurance plan did not include specific numerical acceptance criteria\nfor defect/repair rates. When unacceptable rates are noted this should initiate a re-\nevaluation of processes and procedures and necessary modifications to maintain\nconsistent quality. In addition to acceptance criteria, the quality assurance plan\nshould include controls to reduce the variations in working conditions on a larger\nscale construction project to maintain consistency and repeatability.\n2. § 192.328 Additional construction requirements for steel pipe using alternative\nmaximum allowable operating pressure.\n(a)(2) The quality assurance plan for applying and testing field applied coating to\ngirth welds must be:\n(i) Equivalent to that required under § 192.112(f)(3) for pipe; and\n(ii) Performed by an individual with the knowledge, skills, and ability to\nassure effective coating application.\n2\n\n\n\n§ 192.112(f)(3) A quality assurance inspection and testing program for\nthe coating must cover the surface quality of the bare pipe, surface\ncleanliness and chlorides, blast cleaning, application temperature\ncontrol, adhesion, cathodic disbondment, moisture permeation,\nbending, coating thickness, holiday detection, and repair.\nThe construction project did not have an adequate quality inspection and testing\nprocedure for holiday detection of coatings during field construction. PHMSA\ncommunicated expectations regarding holiday detection for Alternate Maximum\nOperating Pressure pipelines on the publicly accessible website, “Standards for\nImplementing Alternative MAOP for Gas Transmission Pipelines” at\nhttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/maop/index.htm. The website included holiday\ndetection testing (revised June 11, 2010) to verify the quality of pipe coating.\nTransCanada was aware of these expectations, yet continued to perform holiday\ndetection at lower than recommended voltages until September 9, 2010.\n3. § 192.807 Recordkeeping. Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate\ncompliance with this subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).requirements for steel pipe using alternative\nmaximum allowable operating pressure.\nThe quality and accuracy of qualification records for individuals performing\ncovered tasks during the construction of an alternate MAOP pipeline were\ndeficient. During the field operator qualification (OQ) inspection, performed by a\nPHMSA inspector on September 28, 2010, records of individuals provided by\nrepresentatives of Price Gregory, Pegasus and TransCanada personnel were\nreviewed at the time of the inspection. During the review of OQ records, there\nwere discrepancies between those individuals who may have performed covered\ntasks to those individuals qualified to perform covered tasks. A comprehensive\nprogram began September 29, 2010 to correct these deficiencies.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this letter.\nFailure to do so will result in TransCanada Bison Pipeline being subject to additional\nenforcement action.\n3\n\n\n\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 3-2011-1002W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":7909}