{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120151003","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":"2015-02-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.303.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120151003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.303. The case was opened on 2015-02-17 and is reported as closed as of 2016-03-09. Proposed civil penalty: $58,700. Assessed civil penalty: $58,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120151003_Final Order_02262016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151003/120151003_Final%20Order_02262016.pdf\n\n120151003_Final Order_02262016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151003/120151003_Final%20Order_02262016_text.pdf\n\n120151003_NOPV_PCP_02172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151003/120151003_NOPV_PCP_02172015.pdf\n\n120151003_NOPV_PCP_02172015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151003/120151003_NOPV_PCP_02172015_text.pdf\n\n120151003_Operator Response to Notice_04152015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151003/120151003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04152015.pdf\n\n120151003_Final Order_02262016_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 26, 2016\nMr. Gregory L. Ebel\nPresident and CEO\nSpectra Energy Corporation\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 1-2015-1003\nDear Mr. Ebel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$58,700. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has\nbeen paid, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order 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,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Rick Kivela, Director, Operational Compliance, Spectra Energy Partners, LP\nMr. J. Andrew Drake, Vice President, Operations and EHS,\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP\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. 1-2015-1003\na subsidiary of Spectra Energy Corp., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 23-27 and August 11-14, 2014, 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 construction inspection of the facilities and records of Texas Eastern\nTransmission, LP (TETLP or Respondent), a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Corp. The inspection\ninvolved construction activities associated with the company’s TEAM 2014 project in Shermans\nDale and Perulack, Pennsylvania. The Texas Eastern natural gas transmission system consists of\n9,022 miles of pipeline transporting natural gas from the Gulf Coast region of Texas and\nLouisiana to Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated February 17, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that TETLP had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $58,700 for the alleged\nviolations.\nTETLP responded to the Notice by letter dated April 15, 2015 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand, therefore, has waived its right to one.\n1 http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operations/US-Natural-Gas-Pipelines/Texas-Eastern-Transmission/ (last accessed\nSeptember 28, 2015).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\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. § 192.303, which states:\n§ 192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards.\n(a) Each transmission line or main must be constructed in\naccordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are\nconsistent with this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303 by failing to construct each\ntransmission line and main in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards\nthat are consistent with Part 192. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TETLP failed to follow its\nown written construction specification CS-PL1.7, Onshore Pipelines and Meter Stations,\nRevision Date 12/12/2012 (CS-PL1.7) when placing backfill over the pipe during construction.\nCS-PL1.7, Section 19: Backfill, stated: “Contractor shall exercise care when placing backfill over\npipe. The area around the pipe to 8 inches above the pipe in the trench shall be backfilled with\nsmall, fine material meeting the requirements for padding in §18.” Section 18, Padding, stated:\n“Padding material imported to the work area or mechanically sifted from native trench soils shall\nbe free of stones larger than 1½ in (38 mm) in any dimension.”2 However, during a field visit on\nJune 26, 2014, a PHMSA inspector observed stones that were larger than 1½ inches being placed\nwithin 8 inches of the transmission line. The PHMSA inspector requested the measurements of\nthe sifter grate that was being used in the backfill machine, and found that the grid spacing was 2\ninches by 2 inches. The inspector took photographs of the backfill material and the backfill\nmachine grate to document that stones larger than 1½ inches were being used.3\nIn its Response, TETLP acknowledged that some of the stones in the backfill material had\ndimensions larger than 1½ inches and that the mesh grid spacing at the time was 2 inches by 2\ninches. TETLP stated that immediately following the PHMSA inspector’s discovery, the\ncompany replaced the backfill machine grate with a 1½-inch grid. In addition, the company\nupdated its construction specifications to state that backfill material “shall be required to pass\nthrough a screen with a 1 ½” x 1 ½” mesh size.”4 Notwithstanding these changes to its activities\nand its construction specifications following the PHMSA inspection, TETLP argued that there\nhad been minimal risk of damage to the pipeline coating from the larger stone size and that\npipeline safety had not been compromised by the company’s failure to follow its own\nconstruction specifications.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303 by\nfailing to construct each transmission line and main in accordance with comprehensive written\nspecifications or standards that are consistent with Part 192.\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (February 12, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), Exhibit A, at 4-5.\n3 Violation Report, Exhibit B.\n4 Response, at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303, as quoted above, by\nfailing to construct each transmission line and main in accordance with comprehensive written\nspecifications or standards that are consistent with Part 192. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTETLP failed to document the identification of those individuals who performed welds on the\npipeline, as required by its written construction specifications in CS-PL1.7, Onshore Pipelines\nand Meter Stations, Revision Date 12/12/2012 (CS-PL1.7) and CS-NDE1.1, Non-Destructive\nExamination – Appendix (CS-NDE1.1 Appendix).\nCS-PL1.7, Section 10B16, Welding and Tie-Ins, stated: “Each qualified welder shall mark with a\nfelt tip marker or paint stick the number or symbol assigned to them by the Company adjacent to\neach weld for which that person was responsible.”5 CS-PL1.7, Section 10D, Weld Examination,\nspecified that non-destructive examination of welds must be done according to the company’s\nNon-Destructive Examination Manual, CS-NDE1.1.\n6 The CS-NDE1.1 Appendix also required\nthat the identification of all welders involved in each weld be reported on Form TS-406.7\nTherefore, TETLP’s written specifications required that the identity of all welders be recorded on\nboth the pipeline itself and Form TS-406.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed randomly-selected welds and their\nassociated records. For three weld locations, the welders had not been identified on Form TS-\n406. For one weld, only one of the two welders was listed on the form, and that welder was not\non TETLP’s qualified welders list as of the date the weld was performed. Similarly, for nine\nweld locations, this individual was identified on Form TS-406, but was not on the list of\nqualified welders as of the date the welds were performed. Therefore, for 13 welds, the\nidentification of the welder was not properly recorded on Form TS-406.\nIn its Response, TETLP acknowledged that “clerical errors resulted in certain instances where\nthe welder ID stenciled on the pipe did not match the associated documentation,” but maintained\nthat pipeline safety was not compromised because all welders on the project were properly\nqualified and all girth welds were radiographically inspected. In addition, TETLP stated that the\nforms that the PHMSA inspector reviewed had not gone through the company’s daily quality\ncontrol process and, therefore, “were not considered final DOT construction records for the\nproject.”8 However, the welds at issue were performed on June 18 and June 21, 2014, and the\nPHMSA inspection and review of records began on June 23. Therefore, the quality control\nprocess should have been completed and the forms should have properly identified the qualified\nwelders for each weld by the time the PHMSA inspection began.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.303 by failing to construct each transmission line and main in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with Part 192.\n5 Violation Report, Exhibit G, at 3.\n6 Violation Report, Exhibit D, at 1.\n7 Violation Report, Exhibit E, at 2.\n8 Response, at 4.\n\n\n\n4\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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.9 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $58,700 for the violations cited above. Respondent requested that PHMSA find\na lesser level of culpability and credit TETLP with a good faith effort to continuously\nimprove.”10\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.303, for failing to construct each transmission line and main in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with Part 192. Respondent\ndid not contest the violation but asserted that pipeline safety was not compromised by the\ncompany’s failure to follow its own construction specifications and requested the elimination or\nreduction of the proposed penalty amount.\nI am not persuaded by TETLP’s argument for a reduced penalty. The Violation Report states that\n“[p]ipeline safety or integrity was minimally affected” as a result of this violation and, therefore,\ntook into account its relatively low level of gravity.11 The Violation Report also notes that\nRespondent failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement that was clearly\napplicable.12 Respondent provided no argument as to why the culpability finding in the\nViolation Report was incorrect. Respondent’s assertion of a general good-faith effort to\ncontinuously improve is based on corrective actions taken after PHMSA learned of the violation,\nand therefore does not warrant a reduction in the proposed penalty. Respondent provided no\nexplanation as to how its interpretation of this specific construction specification was reasonable.\nTherefore, a credit for good faith is not applicable in this situation.\n13\n9 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n10 Response, at 5.\n11 Violation Report, at 11.\n12 Id. at 12.\n13 Id., at 13.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $30,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.303.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.303, for failing to construct each transmission line and main in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with Part 192. Respondent\ndid not contest the allegation but asserted that pipeline safety was not compromised by the\ncompany’s failure to properly record welder stencil numbers and requested the elimination or\nreduction of the proposed penalty amount.\nAgain, I am not persuaded by TETLP’s argument for a reduced penalty. The Violation Report\nstates that “[p]ipeline safety or integrity was minimally affected” as a result of this violation and\ntherefore took into account its relatively low level of gravity.14 The Violation Report also notes\nthat Respondent failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement that was clearly\napplicable.15 Respondent provided no argument as to why the culpability finding in the\nViolation Report was incorrect. Similarly, Respondent’s assertion of a general good-faith effort\nto continuously improve is based on corrective actions taken after PHMSA learned of the\nviolation. Respondent provided no explanation as to how its interpretation of the record-keeping\nspecifications was reasonable. Therefore, a credit for good faith is not applicable in this\nsituation.16\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $28,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.303.\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 $58,700.\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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration,\nATTN: Shelby Jones, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $58,700 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\n14 Id. at 21.\n15 Id., at 22.\n16 Id., at 23.\n\n\n\n6\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17705}