{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420145016","title":"TC OIL PIPELINE OPERATIONS INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-06-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420145016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420145016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420145016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420145016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TC OIL PIPELINE OPERATIONS INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.202. The case was opened on 2014-06-26 and is reported as closed as of 2016-04-27. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420145016_Final Order_04272016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145016/420145016_Final%20Order_04272016.pdf\n\n420145016_Final Order_04272016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145016/420145016_Final%20Order_04272016_text.pdf\n\n420145016_NOPV PCO_06262014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145016/420145016_NOPV%20PCO_06262014.pdf\n\n420145016_NOPV PCO_06262014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145016/420145016_NOPV%20PCO_06262014_text.pdf\n\n420145016_Operator Response to Notice_07302014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145016/420145016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07302014.pdf\n\n420145016_Final Order_04272016_text.pdf\n\nApril 27, 2016\nMr. Vern Meier\nPresident\nTC Oil Pipeline Operations Inc.\n700 Louisiana Street\nSuite 700\nHouston, TX 77002-2700\nRe: CPF No. 4-2014-5016\nDear Mr. Meier:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nNotice of Probable Violation that was issued on June 26, 2014. This case is now closed. Service\nof the Final Order is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Ken Crowl, Director, Regulatory Compliance, Pipeline Safety & Compliance\nTransCanada Corporation, TC Oil PipeLine Operation Inc., 700 Louisiana Street,\nSuite 700, Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTC Oil Pipeline Operations Inc., ) CPF No. 4-2014-5016\n)\nRespondent. )\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 8-11, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an inspection of the Houston Lateral pipeline construction project of TC Oil Pipeline\nOperations Inc. (TC Oil or Respondent) near Mont Belvieu, Texas.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director) issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order on June 26, 2014 (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that Respondent committed a violation of the\nhazardous liquid pipeline safety standards and proposed certain corrective action be taken.\nTC Oil responded by requesting a hearing on July 30, 2014, and by submitting additional written\nmaterials on October 6, 2014. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held by\ntelephone conference on October 15, 2014, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief\nCounsel, PHMSA. After the hearing, TC Oil submitted written materials on November 13,\n2014, and July 10, 2015. Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written\nevaluation of Respondent’s response material on May 28, 2015.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed a violation of the pipeline safety standards in\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 TC Oil is a subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited, operating approximately 1,900 miles of pipeline\ntransporting crude oil from the US-Canada border in North Dakota to locations in Illinois and Texas, as reported by\nTC Oil for calendar year 2014 pursuant to § 195.49.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2014-5016\nPage 2\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.202 by failing to construct its pipeline system\nin accordance with written procedures consistent with the safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part\n195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s written procedures for bending pipe\nwere inadequate because they failed to mention the type of pipe actually being bent during\nconstruction, known as spiral weld seam pipe. In addition, the Notice alleged that during the\ninspection, OPS requested documentation about the suitability of bending spiral seam pipe using\nthe procedure, but TC Oil provided no documentation.\nIn its written submissions and at the hearing, Respondent contested the allegation in the Notice\nand argued that its procedures complied with § 195.202. Respondent also argued its procedures\ncomplied with § 195.212, a separate regulation that provides minimum standards for bending\npipe. Respondent explained that the procedures applied to all types of pipe and that it was not\nnecessary for the procedures to mention every type of pipe individually. Respondent noted that\nthe regulation for bending pipe also applies to all types of pipe without mentioning them\nindividually. The only seam type mentioned by name in § 195.212 is longitudinal seam pipe.2\nRespondent argued further that its procedures were consistent with applicable industry\nspecifications, including ASME B31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid\nHydrocarbons and Other Liquids and B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems.\nRespondent argued these standards do not mention specific types of pipe with respect to bending\nother than providing additional precautions for longitudinal seams.\nFinally, Respondent explained that it provided OPS with material test records showing the\ntransverse weld and bend test results for spiral seam pipe. TC Oil also provided a separate\nwritten response regarding how its procedures address bending spiral seam pipe and described\nother quality assurance measures.\nAt the hearing, OPS argued that during the inspection, the inspector was unable to determine if\nTC Oil properly followed its procedures because the procedures were silent on the use of spiral\nseam pipe. In addition, OPS argued that by not including the type of pipe, the inspector could\nnot determine if the procedures were compliant without additional investigation into the safety of\nthe procedure for the pipe. OPS also contested Respondent’s assertion that its procedures were\nconsistent with the cited industry standards.\n2 Section 195.212(b)(3) states that when bending pipe with a longitudinal weld, the weld must be as near as\npracticable to the neutral axis of the bend unless certain other conditions are met.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2014-5016\nPage 3\nApplicable Safety Standards\nSafety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines include minimum safety standards for\nconstruction, which are set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 195, Subpart D (§§ 195.200–195.266). Under\n§ 195.202, operators must construct their pipelines in accordance with written procedures that\nare consistent with the safety standards in Subpart D.\nConstruction standards for bending pipe are prescribed in § 195.212. These standards require\npipe bends to have a smooth contour and be free from buckling, cracks, or other mechanical\ndamage. The regulation prohibits wrinkle bends and any bends that would impair the\nserviceability of the pipe.\nBending requirements in § 195.212 do not differentiate between different seam types, with one\nexception. The regulation establishes additional requirements for longitudinal seam pipe\nconcerning the position of the weld in relation to the axis of the bend.\nAnalysis\nPHMSA reviews the record to determine if a failure to identify spiral seam pipe rendered\nRespondent’s procedures inconsistent with the requirements of Subpart D.\nSection 10 of Respondent’s procedures provides specifications for bending pipe. The procedures\nstate that bends must conform to the centerline of the trench and must be performed with the\n“cold smooth method” using an internal bending mandrel for smooth bends. Specifications are\nprovided for ambient temperatures, distance between a bend and end joints, and maximum\ndeflection. Provisions also require rejection of bends with damage to the pipe or coating and\nwhen bends do not meet other criteria. Bends must be free from buckling, flattening, cracks or\nother evidence of mechanical damage.\nRespondent’s procedures are consistent with, and in some respects have more detail than the\nminimum standards specified in § 195.212 for bending pipe. Neither §§ 195.202 nor 195.212\ndifferentiate between how spiral seam pipe must be bent versus other types of seam welds. The\nonly exception in the regulation is for bending longitudinal seam pipe, which is not an issue\nhere.\n3 All of the other bending requirements in the regulation are applicable regardless of weld\nseam type. Therefore, not mentioning spiral seam pipe in Respondent’s procedures was not\ninconsistent with the regulation.\nAlthough OPS argued at the hearing that the procedures also failed to have additional details\nabout the bending process, that is an issue more appropriately addressed through a notice of\namendment.4 Under § 190.206, a notice of amendment may be issued when OPS believes an\noperator’s procedures are “inadequate to assure safe operation.” Unlike a notice of probable\n3 The Notice stated that Respondent’s procedures already specified in detail the manner in which to bend pipe\ncontaining a longitudinal weld.\n4 See, e.g., Enterprise Products Operating LLC, CPF No. 4-2013-5011, at 4, 2016 WL 1104436, at *3 (Feb. 4, 2016)\n(withdrawing alleged violation but finding operator should clarify its procedures).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2014-5016\nPage 4\nviolation, which was issued in this matter, a notice of amendment is not predicated on there\nbeing a specific regulatory violation.\nIn this case, Respondent has demonstrated that its procedures were not in violation of the\nregulation in the manner alleged by the Notice. Therefore the allegation of violation and\nproposed compliance order are withdrawn.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n_______________________________ _________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":10497}