{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120131001","title":"TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-01-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(d), 192.605(a), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120131001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120131001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120131001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120131001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(d),  192.605(a),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2013-01-08 and is reported as closed as of 2014-01-17. Proposed civil penalty: $95,500. Assessed civil penalty: $87,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120131001_Final Order_12052013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131001/120131001_Final%20Order_12052013.pdf\n\n120131001_Final Order_12052013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131001/120131001_Final%20Order_12052013_text.pdf\n\n120131001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01082013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131001/120131001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01082013.pdf\n\n120131001_NOVP_PCP_PCO_01082013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131001/120131001_NOVP_PCP_PCO_01082013_text.pdf\n\n120131001_Operator Response to Notice_02082013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131001/120131001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02082013.pdf\n\n120131001_Final Order_12052013_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 5, 2013\nMr. Thomas C. O’Conner\nPrincipal Executive Officer\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-1001\nDear Mr. O’Conner:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $87,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 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. Byron E. Coy, PE, Director Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Theopolis Holeman, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Group VP, US Operations &\nServices\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___________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2013-1001\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the week of August 22, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Texas\nEastern Transmission, LP (TETCO or Respondent), in the Armagh/Lilly area of Pennsylvania.\nTETCO, an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC (Spectra),\nis primarily engaged in the interstate transportation of natural gas, operating over 9,200 miles of\ntransmission pipelines from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast United States.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated January 8, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that TETCO had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605(a), 192.745(a), and 192.465(d)\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $95,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.\nSpectra, on behalf of TETCO, responded to the Notice by letter dated February 8, 2013\n(Response). The company contested certain allegations, offered additional information in\nresponse to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n1 Spectra Energy website, available at http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operations/US-Natural-Gas-Pipelines/ (last\naccessed September 11, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for monitoring atmospheric corrosion of acoustically insulated\npipe. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TETCO failed to follow its written procedure 2-5020,\nAtmospheric Pipe Inspection, which required the company to pay particular attention to piping\nunder acoustic insulation. In this instance, it was alleged that TETCO had failed, since 2007, to\ninspect a section of insulated piping located at the Armagh and Lilly compression stations and\nhad failed to install inspection ports to allow visual inspection of the pipeline.\nTETCO did not dispute the alleged violation but, rather, claimed it was duplicative of the\nallegations contained in an earlier enforcement action, CPF No. 4-2012-1009. TETCO asserted\nthat either the violation should be withdrawn or the proposed corrective action order modified to\nreflect that TETCO had already complied with the terms of the proposed Compliance Order. In\nCPF No. 4-2012-1009, TETCO had been cited for failing to properly inspect insulated piping\nlocated at its Atlanta Compressor Station, in violation of its procedure 2-5000. In the present\ncase, TETCO has been cited for failing to inspect insulated piping at the Armagh and Lilly\ncompressor stations, in Pennsylvania, in violation of a different procedure, 2-5020. Each\nviolation was found by different inspectors, in different regions, on different days, and involved\ndifferent procedures.\nHaving reviewed the allegations contained in both cases, I find they are not duplicative in nature.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for monitoring\natmospheric corrosion, which required the company to pay particular attention to piping under\nacoustic insulation.\nTETCO also raised the issue of whether the terms of the proposed compliance order are\nduplicative of the compliance order issued in CPF No. 4-2012-1009. This will be discussed in\nthe Compliance Order section below.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\n\n\n\n3\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to partially\noperate certain transmission line valves that might be required in an emergency during annual\ninspections. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, based upon PHMSA’s review of the\ncompany’s Valve Maintenance Records from 2007 to 2010 and discussions with the operator\nduring the inspection, TETCO failed to properly operate 11 transmission valves during the\ncompany’s annual inspections.\nRespondent contests this allegation of violation on two grounds. First, TETCO asserts that seven\nof the valves were improperly classified as emergency valves. Those valves are: ARMA-RSC-2,\nARMA-RSC-5, 12-305, ARMA-AN-1, ARMA-AN-2, ARMA-DP-2, and ARMA-PT-1. Second,\nTETCO contends that the four remaining valves were in fact operated within the required\ntimeframes under § 192.745(a).\nTETCO has provided evidence supporting its characterization of seven of the valves as “non-\nemergency” valves. Having reviewed the information provided, I agree that seven of the\nreferenced valves are not emergency valves and therefore did not require inspection under\n§ 192.745(a). To the extent that this may impact the proposed penalty, this will be discussed in\nthe Assessment of Penalty section below.\nAdditionally, TETCO has provided documentation to demonstrate that three of the remaining\nfour emergency valves were partially operated each year, pursuant to § 192.745(a):\n- Exhibit B and C of TETCO’s Response provide evidence that valve #27-505 was\noperated in 2008 and 2009. TETCO failed to provide any evidence that it properly\noperated valve #27-505 in 2010;\n- Exhibit D of TETCO’s Response provides evidence that valve #12-50 was operated on\nJune 5 and 18, 2009; and\n- Exhibit E & F of TETCO’S Response provides evidence that valve #AMRA-SBD-1 was\noperated on 4/4/2009 and 10/12/09.\nTETCO offered no evidence that valve #19-516 was operated in 2009; it merely makes an\nunsubstantiated claim that its employee operated the valve during an annual inspection within the\nrelevant time period. Such a claim is insufficient to establish that the valve was properly\noperated. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) on two occasions: first, by failing to operate emergency valve\n#27-505 in 2010 and, second, by failing to operate valve #19-516 in 2009.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) …\n\n\n\n4\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct a deficiency indicated by the company’s cathodic protection (CP)\nmonitoring program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that from July 14, 2008, until\nAugust 8, 2011, TETCO failed to take any action to remediate low-voltage readings on a valve\nemerging from the ground in the compressor room of the Lilly Compressor Station (i.e., test\npoint 34). The Notice alleged that the failure to take such a reading violated TETCO’s own\nprocedures, which required that remedial action be initiated prior to the next scheduled survey on\nJuly 27, 2009.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct a deficiency indicated by its CP monitoring program.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $95,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for monitoring\natmospheric corrosion of acoustically insulated pipe. As discussed above, TETCO did not\ncontest the violation, but contended that the penalty should be reduced or stricken as duplicative\nof the penalty assessed in NOPV No. 4-2012-1009. For the reasons previously stated, I do not\nbelieve that Item 1 is duplicative of the violation assessed in NOPV No. 4-2012-1009.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a)\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $49,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), for failing to partially operate 11 transmission valves that might be\nrequired during an emergency. As noted above, TETCO provided evidence that seven of the\n\n\n\n5\nvalves had been misclassified by PHMSA and should not have been considered when calculating\nthe penalty. Additionally, TETCO was able to demonstrate that of the four remaining valves,\ntwo of them were properly tested. Therefore, I have reduced the penalty to the amount that\nwould have been proposed for two, as opposed to eleven, violations.2 Based upon the foregoing,\nI assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $40,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), for failing to take prompt remedial action to correct a deficiency\nindicated by its CP monitoring. While TETCO did not contest the allegation of violation, it did\nrequest a penalty reduction on the grounds that the gravity determination and culpability ascribed\nto the company in the Violation Report were incorrect.3 Specifically, TETCO contended that the\ngravity and culpability determinations should be modified because, although there were CP\nreadings that normally required remedial action, the company believed there was never any real\npotential for harm. According to TETCO, this was because the pipe was located inside a\ncompressor building, the reading taken in 2011 was satisfactory, and the low readings were from\na gate valve set in crushed stone, which was not a sufficient medium for CP effectiveness or\nmeasurement.\nThe Violation Report noted that “[p]ipeline integrity or safe operation was potentially\ncompromised in a populated area…”4 The location of the facility is not in dispute, nor the fact\nthat safety was potentially compromised by the low reading. The CP readings themselves are not\nin dispute. The fact that TETCO took no action to determine the cause of the improper readings\nprior to PHMSA’s inspection is also not in dispute. Following receipt of the Notice, TETCO\nfashions an explanation as to why the CP readings were low, but cannot refute the fact that it\ntook no action to verify why they were low, as required by the regulation.\nTETCO also attempts to have the penalty reduced because no accident occurred. However, the\nfact that there was no accident was already considered in proposing the penalty. In fact, had an\naccident occurred, the “gravity” finding and penalty would have been adjusted upward.\nTherefore, I find that the “gravity” finding was appropriate in this instance.\nFurthermore, I find no basis to reduce TETCO’s culpability in this instance. “[A]n operator will\ngenerally be considered culpable for any failure to comply with the requirements absent some\njustification for the failure, such as an unforeseeable event outside of its control.”5 Again,\nTETCO has provided no explanation as to why it failed to take prompt action to remediate, or\neven investigate, the deficient CP readings, which was required not only by its own procedures\nbut by § 192.465(d) as well.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\n2 When a civil penalty is assessed for more than one instance of a violation (e.g., 11 valve inspections), the\nadditional instances typically elevate the total penalty by less than the amount assessed for the first instance.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), January 8, 2013, at 7.\n4 Violation Report, at 18.\n5 White Cliffs Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 3-2011-5015, 2013 WL 1247518. (February 5, 2012).\n\n\n\n6\nRespondent a civil penalty of $33,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $87,100.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nHaving reviewed the terms of the proposed compliance order for this action and that of NOPV\nNo. 4-2012-1009, I agree with Respondent and find that the two are duplicative. TETCO has\nalready been ordered to:\nSurvey all applicable insulated segments of its pipeline facilities throughout its\npipeline system to ensure they are protected from atmospheric corrosion under\nthermal insulation. Based on this review and survey, develop and follow a plan,\nprocess, and procedure to ensure that the inspection, testing, and monitoring of pipe\ncoating under thermal insulation are performed in a manner consistent with\n49 C.P.R.§ 195.481(b). (emphasis added).\nThe Director of the Southern Region has indicated that Respondent has taken the following\nactions to address some of the cited violations in CPF No. 4-2012-1009:\nSurveyed all applicable insulated segments of its pipeline facilities throughout its\npipeline system ensuring they are protected from atmospheric corrosion under\nthermal insulation. Developed and followed a plan, process, and procedure to ensure\nthat the inspection, testing, and monitoring of pipe coating under thermal insulation\nare performed in a manner consistent with 49 C.P.R. § 195.481(b).\nHaving completed a survey of its entire insulated pipeline system, TETCO does not now need to\nsurvey the Armagh and Lilly compressor stations again for corrosion. Accordingly, I find that\ncompliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore, the compliance terms\nproposed in the Notice for Item 1is not included in this Order.\n\n\n\n7\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order [CPF No. 1-2013-1001]. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same\naddress. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of\nthis Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request,\ngrants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":20568}