{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165013M","title":"TC OIL PIPELINE OPERATIONS INC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-04-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 190.203(f), 195.402(c)(14), 195.405(a), 195.405(b), 195.430(a), 195.432(b), 195.54(a), 195.567(c), 195.571, 195.579(c), 195.583(a), 195.583(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165013m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165013m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165013m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165013M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving TC OIL PIPELINE OPERATIONS INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 190.203(f),  195.402(c)(14),  195.405(a),  195.405(b),  195.430(a),  195.432(b),  195.54(a),  195.567(c),  195.571,  195.579(c),  195.583(a),  195.583(b). The case was opened on 2016-04-26 and is reported as closed as of 2019-07-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165013M_Closure Letter_07092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165013M/420165013M_Closure%20Letter_07092019.pdf\n\n420165013M_Closure Letter_07092019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165013M/420165013M_Closure%20Letter_07092019_text.pdf\n\n420165013M_Notice of Amendment_04262016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165013M/420165013M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_04262016.pdf\n\n420165013M_Notice of Amendment_04262016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165013M/420165013M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_04262016_text.pdf\n\n420165013M_Order Directing Amendment_02042019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165013M/420165013M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_02042019.pdf\n\n420165013M_Order Directing Amendment_02042019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165013M/420165013M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_02042019_text.pdf\n\n420165013M_Notice of Amendment_04262016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 26, 2016\nMr. Paul Miller\nExecutive-Vice President/President, Liquids Pipelines\nTC Oil Pipeline Operations Inc.\n450-1 Street SW\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada\nT2P 5H1\nCPF 4-2016-5013M\nDear Mr. Miller:\nOn March 3, 2015 – May 14, 2015, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected TC Oil\nPipeline Operations Inc. (TransCanada) procedures and records for the pipeline facilities of the\nKeystone XL – Gulf Coast Pipeline.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nTransCanada’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance\nand normal operations:\n(14) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel from the\nhazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available when needed at\nthe excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus and, a\nrescue harness and line.\nTransCanada’s operating procedure (Procedure), “Oil Pipelines Pressure Restriction\nImplementation Procedure”, section 5.0; page 5 of 8, revision 00, dated 2013/02/07 did not include\nadequate requirements for documenting the pressure restrictions specified by the procedures.\n\n\n\nTransCanada’s operating procedure (Form), “Excavation Procedure Checklist”; revision 8, dated\n2012/07/05 does not include an item requiring documentation of the pressure restriction at the\nexcavation location. TransCanada must revise the Excavation Procedure Checklist to include\ndocumentation of the pressure restriction.\n2. § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653 (incorporated\nby reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank\nbottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the\noperations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).\nTransCanada's Procedure 195.432, “Inspection of In-Service Breakout Tanks”, revision 8, dated\n2015/02/16, section 3 references API 653, Section 4 for the inspection requirements of\naboveground breakout tanks references the wrong section of API 653. The correct reference is API\n653 Standards which deals with inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\nTransCanada must amend their procedures to require breakout tank inspections be performed in\naccordance to the requirements of API 653 Standard and reference the version of API Standard\n653 incorporated in Part 195.\n3. § 195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and\nbreakout tank area. The equipment must be—\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;\nTransCanada’s procedure 195.430, “Firefighting Equipment”, revision 8, dated 2015/02/16,\nsection 4.0, “General” does not include the requirement that firefighting equipment be, “in proper\noperating condition at all times”.\nTransCanada must revise their procedure to specify how and when maintenance will be performed\non the firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.\n4. § 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress involving floating roofs.\n(a) After October 2, 2000, protection provided against ignitions arising out of static\nelectricity, lightning, and stray currents during operation and maintenance activities\ninvolving aboveground breakout tanks must be in accordance with API Recommended\nPractice 2003, unless the operator notes in the procedural manual (§ 195.402(c)) why\n\n\n\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice 2003 is not\nnecessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.\nTransCanada’s O&M procedure 195.405, – “Protection Against Ignitions…”, 3.0 Reference, does\nnot indicate which edition (7th edition, January 2008) of API 2003 as the referenced standard\nincorporated by 49 CFR 195.3.\nTransCanada must amend their procedures to reference the version of API RP 2003 incorporated\nin Part 195.\n5. § 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress involving floating roofs.\n(b) The hazards associated with access/egress onto floating roofs of in-service\naboveground breakout tanks to perform inspection, service, maintenance or repair\nactivities (other than specified general considerations, specified routine tasks or entering\ntanks removed from service for cleaning) are addressed in API Publication 2026. After\nOctober 2, 2000, the operator must review and consider the potentially hazardous\nconditions, safety practices and procedures in API Publication 2026 for inclusion in the\nprocedure manual (§ 195.402(c)).\nTransCanada’s O&M procedure 195.405, – “Protection Against Ignitions…”, 3.0 Reference, does\nnot indicate which edition (2nd edition, April 1998, reaffirmed June 2006) of API 2026 as the most\ncurrent referenced standard as incorporated by 49 CFR 195.3.\nTransCanada must amend their procedures to reference the version of API RP 2026 incorporated\nin Part 195.\n6. § 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported under §\n195.50 must, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after discovery of the\naccident, file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1.\nTransCanada's Procedure 195.50 and 195.54 Reporting Accidents, does not meet the requirements\nof 105.54(a) which states that an operator must, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days\nafter discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1. TransCanada's\nprocedure does not require the filing of an accident report not later than 30 days after discovery of\nthe accident.\nTransCanada must revise their procedures to require a DOT Form 7000-1 be filed not later than\n30 days after discovery of the accident.\n\n\n\n7. Per PHMSA Recommended Conditions for Keystone XL State Department\nPresidential Permit, Condition 50 states,\nReporting – Immediate: Keystone must provide immediate notification of all reportable\nincidents in accordance with 49 CFR 195, and shall notify the appropriate PHMSA\nregional office within twenty-four (24) hours of any non-reportable leaks occurring on\nthe pipeline.\nTransCanada's Procedure 195.52 – “Immediate Notice of Certain Accidents”, Section 4.0 General,\n#3, and does not meet the requirements of Special Permit Item #50. The permit states that\nTransCanada must provide immediate notification of all reportable incidents in accordance with\n49 CFR 195, and non-reportable leaks within 24 hours. TransCanada's procedure does not require\nthe immediate notification of incidents that meet the requirements per 195.50, 195.54, 195.55, and\n195.56. Procedure requires only the immediate notification of incidents meeting the criteria of 195.\n52.\nTransCanada must revise their procedures to require immediate notification of all reportable\nincidents as defined by Part 195 and the occurrence of any non-reportable leaks within 24 hours.\n8. § 195.567 Which pipelines must have test leads and what must I do to install and\nmaintain the leads?\n(c) Maintenance. You must maintain the test lead wires in a condition that enables you to obtain\nelectrical measurements to determine whether cathodic protection complies with §\n195.571.\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or more of the\napplicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in\nparagraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nTransCanada’s O&M procedure 195.567 – “Test Leads” does not specify a process for taking\ncathodic protection readings when a test lead is found to be broken. Additionally, procedure does\nnot require broken test leads to be repaired before the next monitoring cycle.\nTransCanada must revise their procedures to specify the actions for taking cathodic protection\nreadings when a test lead is broken, and requires repairs be made to that test lead prior to the next\nrequired monitoring cycle.\n9. § 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\n\n\n\nIf the pipeline\nis\nlocated:\nThen the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths.\nOffshore At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths.\n(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air\ninterfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in\nsplash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.\nTransCanada’s O&M procedure 195.583 – “Atmospheric Corrosion Monitoring” does not\nspecifically include requirements for the inspection of piping under thermal insulation once every\nthree calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. A significant portion of\nTransCanada’s above ground piping on the Gulf Coast is insulated manifold piping. Due to the\nincrease in viscosity the temperature of the commodity drops. TransCanada made no provisions\nfor atmospheric corrosion inspections of this piping that is subject to a specialized type of\natmospheric corrosion termed corrosion under insulation or CUI.\nTransCanada must provide procedures to inspect the insulated piping for atmospheric corrosion as\nrequired by 195.583.\n10. § 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you must inspect the\ninternal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If you find internal corrosion\nrequiring corrective action under § 195.585, you must investigate circumferentially\nand longitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination, indirect method,\nor both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists\nin the vicinity of the removed pipe.\nTransCanada’s O&M procedure 195.579 – “Internal Corrosion Control” does not require removed\npipe found with internal corrosion to be investigated circumferentially and longitudinally beyond\nthe removed the pipe.\nTransCanada must revise their procedures to include requirements to investigate circumferentially\nand longitudinally remove pipe remove pipe from a pipeline for evidence of corrosion. The\noperator must take appropriate corrective action if corrosion is found.\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance\nProceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this\nNotice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49\nC.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended\nprocedures to my office within 45 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by\nwritten request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in\nyour amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that TC Oil Pipeline Operations Inc. maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director,\nSouthwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence\nconcerning this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-5013M and, for each document you submit,\nplease provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n\n420165013M_Closure Letter_07092019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 9, 2019\nPaul Miller\nExecutive Vice-President and President, Liquids Pipelines\nTC Oil Pipeline Operations, Inc.\n450 1st Street S.W.\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P5H1\nCPF 4-2016-5013M\nDear Mr. Miller:\nFrom March 3, 2015 to May 14, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an\ninspection of TC Oil Pipeline Operations, Inc., a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation\n(TransCanada), including its written procedures and records for the pipeline facilities of the Gulf\nCoast Pipeline. TransCanada owns and operates the Keystone Pipeline System, including the Gulf\nCoast Pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, TransCanada was issued a Notice of Amendment on April 26, 2016.\nTransCanada responded to the Notice by letters dated June 8, 2016 and August 26, 2016 with\nprocedural revisions. Following further discussion to resolve the remaining issues on October 12,\n2016 and February 8, 2017 PHMSA issued an Ordering of Directing Amendment on February 4,\n2019.\nTransCanada submitted its amended procedures on February 27, 2019. My staff reviewed the\namended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Order of Directing\nAmendment have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420165013M_Order Directing Amendment_02042019_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 4, 2019\nMr. Russell K. Girling\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nTransCanada Corporation\n450-1 Street SW\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada\nT2P 5H1\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nDear Mr. Girling:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that TC Oil Pipeline Operations, Inc., a\nsubsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, amend certain of its operating and maintenance\nprocedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order\nDirecting Amendment by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Paul Miller, Executive Vice President and President, Liquids Pipelines, TC Oil\nPipeline Operations, Inc., 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002-2700\nMr. Lee Romack, Manager, U.S. Regulatory Compliance, TransCanada Corporation,\nlee_romack@transcanada.com\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 )\nTC Oil Pipeline Operations, Inc., ) CPF No. 4-2016-5013M\na subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom March 3, 2015 to March 14, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an inspection of TC Oil Pipeline Operations, Inc., a subsidiary of TransCanada\nCorporation (TransCanada or Respondent), including its written procedures and records for the\npipeline facilities of the Gulf Coast Pipeline. TransCanada owns and operates the Keystone\nPipeline System, including the Gulf Coast Pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 26, 2016, a Notice of Amendment (Notice), alleging that\nTransCanada’s plans and procedures were inadequate to ensure the safe operation of its pipeline\nfacilities and proposing, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, that Respondent amend its\nprocedures.\nTransCanada responded to the Notice by letter dated June 8, 2016 (Response), and submitted\nrevised procedures. On August 26, 2016, in response to PHMSA identifying certain alleged\ninadequacies that remained in the procedures, TransCanada submitted a second set of revised\nprocedures to PHMSA, after which Respondent and PHMSA communicated further about the\nprocedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nUpon review of the amended procedures submitted by Respondent, I find that Respondent has\ncorrected the identified inadequacies in Items 9 and 10 of the Notice. However, for the reasons\ndiscussed below, I find that Respondent still has not adequately addressed Items 1 through 8 of\nthe Notice.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s plans and procedures and proposed\nrequiring TransCanada to amend its procedures to ensure safe operations with regard to the\nprovisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, I\nfind the following procedures to be inadequate:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(14), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations: . . .\n(1) . . . .\n(14) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect\npersonnel from the hazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and\nmaking available when needed at the excavation, emergency rescue\nequipment, including a breathing apparatus and, a rescue harness and line.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure regarding the documentation of pressure\nrestrictions in excavated trenches, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(14), was inadequate.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s Operating Procedure, titled “Oil Pipelines\nPressure Restriction Implementation Procedure,” referenced another TransCanada operating\nform, titled \"Excavation Procedure Checklist\"; revision 8, dated 2012/07/05, but did not require\ndocumentation of the pressure restriction at the excavation location.\nIn its Response, TransCanada did not contest the allegation and stated that it was “amending the\nExcavation Procedure Checklist to include documentation of pressure restrictions.” Respondent\nsubmitted a revised “Excavation Procedure Checklist” on August 26, 2016, which included the\nfollowing item in the “Planning” section of the checklist: “21. Is a pressure restriction required\nfor the excavation and if so note the restriction in the comments?”\nHaving reviewed TransCanada’s revised procedure, I find that although Respondent amended its\nExcavation Procedure Checklist to include a question about whether a pressure restriction was\nrequired for excavation, and if so, to note the restriction in the comments, the procedure still does\nnot clearly state that pressure restrictions are to be implemented and documented before the\nexcavation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures are still inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline system. Respondent is hereby ordered to amend its written procedures\nas follows. TransCanada must:\n1. Revise its operating procedure, titled \"Excavation Procedure Checklist,\" to\nspecifically state that pressure restrictions are to be implemented and documented\nprior to any excavation activities; and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 3\n2. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Order.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection\nInterval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural\nconditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in\nAPI Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure regarding the inspection of in-service breakout\ntanks pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) was inadequate because it referenced an incorrect\nsection of API Standard (Std) 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TransCanada’s O&M\nProcedure 195.432, \"Inspection of In-Service Breakout Tanks\", revision 8, dated 2015/02/16,\nreferenced API Std 653, Section 4, for the inspection requirements of aboveground breakout\ntanks. The Notice alleged that the correct reference should have been to API Std 653 in its\nentirety.\nIn its Response, TransCanada did not contest the allegation and acknowledged that its procedure\nincluded an incorrect reference to API Std 653, Section 4. TransCanada stated that it would\namend the procedure to require breakout tank inspections be performed in accordance to the\nrequirements of API Std 653 and include a reference to the version of API Std 653 that has been\nincorporated by reference into 49 C.F.R. Part 195. TransCanada submitted amended procedures\non August 26, 2016, Section 4.0 of which states, “Low pressure steel aboveground tanks are\ninspected according to API 653 . . . .” With respect to the version of API Std 653, the procedure\nreferences “API Standard 653, latest edition incorporated by reference (IBR) in\n49 CFR § 195.3.” Similarly, the procedures reference certain other API Standards, using the\nlanguage “latest edition incorporated by reference in 49 CFR § 195.3.”\nHaving considered Respondent’s procedure, I find that although TransCanada’s amended\nprocedure now identifies API Std 653 in its entirety, it still does not clearly identify the specific\nversion of API Std 653 incorporated by reference in 49 C.F.R. § 195.3. The language of the\nprocedure, i.e., the “latest edition incorporated by reference in 49 CFR § 195.3,” assumes that\nRespondent’s personnel have the most recent version of 49 CFR Part 195 accessible, and may\nlead to confusion about the correct edition to use if an individual has an old version of the Code\nor if the Code has been recently revised. The version of API Std 653 currently incorporated by\nreference in 49 C.F.R. Part 195 is “API Standard 653, ‘Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 4\nReconstruction,’ 3rd edition, December 2001 (including addendum 1 (September 2003),\naddendum 2 (November 2005), addendum 3 (February 2008), and errata (April 2008)).”\nFurthermore, the amended procedure does not specifically require that in-service atmospheric\nsteel aboveground breakout tanks, in addition to low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks,\nbe inspected according to API Std 653. Under 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), an operator must follow\nall of the requirements of API Std 653, as referenced in 49 C.F.R. § 195.3, except section 6.4.3,\nunless structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom. The Standard details specific\nmaintenance inspection, repair, alteration, relocation, and reconstruction requirements that\noperators must follow with regard to certain in-service tanks. Upon review of Respondent’s\namendment to “O&M Procedure 195.432 Inspection of in-service break out tanks,” as quoted\nabove, the procedure remains inadequate to ensure safety with regard to § 195.432(b).\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures are still inadequate to assure safe operation of\nits pipeline system. TransCanada is hereby ordered to amend its written procedures as follows.\nRespondent must:\n1. Revise its procedural manual, titled “O&M Procedure 195.432 Inspection of in-\nservice break out tanks” part 3.0, to specifically identify API Standard 653,\n“Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction,” 3rd edition, December\n2001, (including addendum 1 (September 2003), addendum 2 (November 2005)\naddendum 3 (February 2008), and errata (April 2008)), as a reference for in-\nservice atmospheric and low-pressure breakout tank inspections;\n2. Revise its procedural manual, titled “O&M Procedure 195.432 Inspection of in-\nservice break out tanks” part 4.0, subsection 2, to state that in-service\natmospheric and breakout tanks are to be inspected according to API Standard\n653, “Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction,” 3rd edition,\nDecember 2001, (including addendum 1 (September 2003), addendum 2\n(November 2005); and\n3. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Order.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.430(a), which states:\n§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be—\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure regarding firefighting equipment pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.430(a) was inadequate because it failed to specify how and when maintenance\nwould be performed on the firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank to\nensure that it was in proper operating condition at all times. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 5\nTransCanada’s Procedure 195.430, \"Firefighting Equipment\", revision 8, Section 4.0,\n“General,” dated 2015/02/16, did not include the requirement that firefighting equipment be “in\nproper operating condition at all times” and did not specify how and when maintenance would be\nperformed on the equipment to ensure proper operating condition.\nIn its Response, TransCanada did not contest the allegation and stated that it was “in process of\nrevising [its] procedures to specify how and when maintenance will be performed on the\nfirefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank.”1 Respondent submitted a\nrevised procedure for its firefighting equipment, by email dated August 26, 2016, and stated that\nits revised procedure defined the requirement for maintaining firefighting equipment and the\nrequired maintenance interval. Upon review of the revised procedure, PHMSA personnel\ninformed Respondent that the company’s procedures still did not explicitly identify the\nfrequency of inspections for the firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout-tank\narea.\nOn October 24, 2016, in response to PHMSA identifying inadequacies that remained in the\nprocedure, TransCanada contended that its amended procedure was adequate because it stated\nthat the firefighting equipment was to be “inspected on an M01 basis”, and that “M01 Level 1 is\ndefined as a monthly inspection which is in accordance with NFPA 10 Section 7.2.4.1.4.”\nHaving considered Respondent’s revised procedure, I find that although it states that inspections\nof firefighting equipment are to be performed on an M01 Level 1 basis, the amended procedure\nstill does not clearly state that M01 Level 1 means monthly inspection intervals. The absence of\nsuch clarification in the procedure can lead to confusion about the intervals required by M01\nLevel 1.\nAccordingly, I find that TransCanada’s procedure is still inadequate to assure safe operation of\nits pipeline system. Respondent is hereby ordered to amend its written procedures as follows.\nRespondent must:\n1. Revise its procedure, titled “O&M document (EDMS# 005713585),” to identify\nthe frequency of maintenance intervals for firefighting equipment at pump-station\nand breakout-tank areas; and\n2. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Order.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.405(a), which states:\n§ 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress involving\nfloating roofs.\n(a) After October 2, 2000, protection provided against ignitions arising\nout of static electricity, lightning, and stray currents during operation and\nmaintenance activities involving aboveground breakout tanks must be in\n1 Response, at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 6\naccordance with API RP 2003 (incorporated by reference, see 49 C.F.R. §\n195.3), unless the operator notes in the procedural manual (49 C.F.R. §\n195.402(c)) why compliance with all or certain provisions of API RP 2003\nis not necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.\nThe Notice alleged that TransCanada’s procedure regarding protection against ignitions and safe\naccess involving floating tanks pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.405(a) was inadequate because it\nfailed to indicate which edition of API Recommended Practice (RP) 2003 was the applicable\nstandard. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s O&M Procedure 195.405, -\n\"Protection Against Ignitions ... \", 3.0 Reference, did not specifically reference which edition of\nAPI RP 2003 was incorporated by reference into 49 C.F.R. § 195.3.\nIn its Response, TransCanada did not contest the allegation and stated that it would amend its\nprocedures to reference the correct version of API RP 2003 that was incorporated in Part 195.\nRespondent submitted amended procedures to PHMSA, by email dated August 26, 2016, Section\n3.0 of which references “API Recommended Practice 2003 Protection Against Ignitions Arising\nout of Static, Lightning and Stray Current, latest edition incorporated by reference in\n49 CFR § 195.3.”2\nHaving reviewed TransCanada’s revised procedures, I find that the phrase “latest edition\nincorporated by reference in 49 CFR § 195.3,” is still inadequate because it could lead to\nconfusion. The correct version that is incorporated by reference in the Code is “API\nRecommended Practice 2003, ‘Protection against Ignitions Arising out of Static, Lightning, and\nStray Currents,’ 7th edition, January 2008, (API RP 2003).”\nAccordingly, I find that TransCanada’s procedures are still inadequate to assure safe operation of\nits pipeline system. Respondent is hereby ordered to amend its written procedures as follows.\nRespondent must:\n1. Revise its procedural manual, titled “O&M procedure 195.405, - \"Protection\nAgainst Ignitions ... \", section 3.0, to specifically identify API Recommended\nPractice 2003, “Protection against Ignitions Arising out of Static, Lightning, and\nStray Currents,” 7th edition, January 2008, (API RP 2003); and\n2. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Order.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.405(b), which states:\n§ 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress involving\nfloating roofs.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) The hazards associated with access/egress onto floating roofs of in-\nservice aboveground breakout tanks to perform inspection, service,\n2 Revisions identified in italics.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 7\nmaintenance, or repair activities (other than specified general\nconsiderations, specified routine tasks or entering tanks removed from\nservice for cleaning) are addressed in API Pub 2026 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3). After October 2, 2000, the operator must review\nand consider the potentially hazardous conditions, safety practices, and\nprocedures in API Pub 2026 for inclusion in the procedure manual\n(§ 195.405(c)).\nThe Notice alleged that TransCanada’s procedure regarding protection against ignitions and safe\naccess/egress involving floating roofs on breakout tanks pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.405(b) was\ninadequate because it did not indicate which edition of API Publication (Pub) 2026 was the\napplicable standard. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s O&M Procedure\n195.405, \"Protection Against Ignitions ... \", 3.0 Reference, did not specifically reference the 2nd\nEdition, April 1998, reaffirmed June 2006, of API Pub 2026 as the most current standard\nincorporated by 49 C.F.R. § 195.3.\nIn its Response, TransCanada did not contest the allegation and stated that it would amend its\nprocedures to reference the version of API RP 2026 incorporated in Part 195. Respondent\nsubmitted amended procedures to PHMSA by email on August 26, 2016, Section 3.0 of which\nreferences “API Recommended Practice 2026, Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roods of\nStorage Tanks in Petroleum Service, latest edition incorporated by reference in\n49 CFR § 195.3.”3\nHaving reviewed TransCanada’s procedures, I find that the language “latest edition incorporated\nby reference in 49 CFR § 195.3,” is still inadequate because it could lead to confusion for the\nsame reason identified above in Items 2 and 4. The correct version that is incorporated by\nreference in the Code is “API Publication 2026, ‘Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of\nStorage Tanks in Petroleum Service,’ 2nd edition, April 1998 (reaffirmed June 2006) (API Pub\n2026).”\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures are still inadequate to assure safe operation of\nits pipeline system. TransCanada is hereby ordered to amend its written procedures as follows.\nRespondent must:\n1. 2. Revise its procedural manual, titled “O&M Procedure 195.405, - \"Protection\nAgainst Ignitions ... \", section 3.0, to specifically identify API Publication 2026,\n“Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum\nService,” 2nd edition, April 1998 (reaffirmed June 2006) (API Pub 2026); and\nSubmit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Order.\n3 Revisions identified in italics.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 8\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a), which states:\n§ 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be\nreported under § 195.50 must, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30\ndays after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form\n7000-1.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure regarding the filing of accident reports pursuant\nto 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a) was inadequate because the procedure did not require accidents to be\nreported within the time period prescribed, using DOT Form 7000-1. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that TransCanada’s “O&M Procedure 195.50 and 190.54 – Reporting Accidents,” did\nnot require the filing of an accident report within 30 days after the discovery of an accident,\nusing the DOT Form.\nIn its Response, TransCanada did not contest the allegation and stated that it was in the process\nof revising its procedure to address the deficiencies alleged in the Notice. Respondent submitted\namended procedures to PHMSA by email on August 26, 2016, Section 4.0 of which states that\nthe “accident report is filed by use of the electronic incident/accident reporting system which can\nbe accessed by using the following URL: https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov. This report is submitted\nas soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after discovery of the accident.”4\nHaving reviewed Respondent’s procedures, I find that although TransCanada has amended its\nprocedure to require the filing of accident reports as soon as practicable, but not later than 30-\ndays after discovery of the accident, the procedures do not specifically require that accident\nreports be filed on DOT Form 7000-1.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedure is still inadequate to assure safe operation of its\npipeline system. TransCanada is hereby ordered to amend its written procedures as follows.\nRespondent must:\n1. Revise its procedural manual, titled “O&M Procedure 195.50 and 195.54\nReporting Accidents” section 4.0, subsection 3, to state that DOT Form 7000-1\nmust be used to file accident reports; and\n2. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Final Order.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure regarding the reporting of pipeline\nincidents under TransCanada’s Keystone XL State Department Presidential Permit, Condition\n50, and 49 C.F.R. Part 195, was inadequate. Specifically, Condition 50 states:\nKeystone XL State Department Presidential Permit, Condition 50\nReporting - Immediate: Keystone must provide immediate notification\n4 Response, at 1. Revisions identified in italics.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5013M\nPage 9\nof all reportable incidents in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195, and shall\nnotify the appropriate PHMSA regional office within twenty-four (24)\nhours of any non-reportable leaks occurring on the pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure was inadequate with regard to Condition 50\nbecause it did not require notification of incidents within the time period pre","truncated":true,"body_characters":53617}