{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120151025","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":"2015-09-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 199.202, 199.225(a)(2)(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151025.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151025.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151025","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120151025","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  199.202,  199.225(a)(2)(i). The case was opened on 2015-09-29 and is reported as closed as of 2017-01-18. Proposed civil penalty: $239,200. Assessed civil penalty: $239,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120151025_Final Order_12292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_Final%20Order_12292016.pdf\n\n120151025_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_Final%20Order_12292016_text.pdf\n\n120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015.pdf\n\n120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015_text.pdf\n\n120151025_Operator Response to Notice_11122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11122015.pdf\n\n120151025_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 29, 2016\nMr. Gregory L. Ebel\nChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer\nSpectra Energy Partners, LP\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, TX77056-5310\nRe: CPF No. 1-2015-1025\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\nof $239,200. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement\naction closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Acting Regional Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA, OPS\nMr. William T. Yardley, President US Transmissions, Spectra Energy Corporation\nMr. Rick Kivela, Director, Operational Compliance, Spectra Energy Partners, LP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 2\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)\n)\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP, )\na subsidiary of Spectra Energy Partners, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 1-2015-1025\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 22 and 23, 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 investigation into an incident that occurred on Texas Eastern Transmission,\nLP’s (Texas Eastern) 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline, known as Line 10\n(located approximately two miles from Carmichael, Pennsylvania), on May 16, 2014, at\n11:15 a.m. eastern daylight savings time (Incident). The Incident resulted in $186,437 worth\nof property damage.\nTexas Eastern is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Spectra Energy Partners, LP (Spectra), a\nmaster limited partnership formed by Spectra Energy Corporation.\n1 Texas Eastern operates\n9,096 miles of natural gas pipelines connecting Texas and the Gulf with the Northeast.2 For\npurposes of this Order, Texas Eastern and Spectra both refer to Respondent and are used\ninterchangeably.\nThe Notice alleged that, based on the results of a 2011 in-line inspection, Spectra decided to\nexcavate Line 10 following the Incident. On May 16, 2014, Spectra uncovered the casing of\nLine 10 and proceeded to cut it, using a cutting machine with an attached oxyacetylene torch.\nDuring the cutting process, the welder allegedly heard popping sounds and reversed direction\nof the torch, when a resulting hiss and significant flames were observed from the cut. The\nfire was immediately extinguished and no injuries, fatalities or supply issues were reported.3\n1 See http://www.spectraenergy.com/About/Spectra-Energy-Partners/. Current as of 4/26/2016.\n2 See http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operations/US-Natural-Gas-Operations/US-Pipelines/. Current as of\n4/26/2016.\n3 CPF 1-2015-1025 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, dated September 29, 2015 (Violation Report), at 1-6.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 29, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and\nProposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Texas Eastern had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605(a), 199.202 and\n199.225(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $239,200 for the alleged violations.\nSpectra responded to the Notice on behalf of Texas Eastern by letter dated November 12,\n2015 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided an\nexplanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalties be reduced or\neliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nRespondent did not contest the following allegations of violation of 49 C.F.R. Parts 192 and 199:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\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 one 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 operations\nand maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities while removing the\ncasing on Line 10. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Spectra failed to follow its written\nprocedure, Standard Operating Procedures, Volume 7- Welding, Procedure number 7-2090,\nProcedure Name: Safety Requirements, Date: 05/12/2014, Subsection 4.8 Removal of Split\nCasings. According to the Notice, that subsection states:\n“Welders shall take the following precautionary measures when using a cutting\ntorch to remove split casing in an effort to minimize the risk of damaging or\nburning through the carrier pipe.\n1. Prior to cutting, verify the gap between the carrier pipe and casing pipe.\nAn oxy-acetylene torch may be used for cutting on casings with gaps 2 [inches]\nand greater. Consult the Metallurgical Services Department to determine the\nappropriate removal method for casings with gaps less than 2 [inches].\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 4\n2. Use an oxy-acetylene gouging tip on the cutting torch to direct\nthe blow of the torch at an angle to the carrier pipe rather than directly\nat the carrier pipe.”\nThe Notice alleged that the precautionary measures enumerated in Subsection 4.8 of the\ncompany’s procedure were not taken during removal of the casing. Spectra allegedly could not\nprovide any documentation demonstrating that it had verified the distance between the casing\nand carrier pipe prior to cutting, and, after investigation, PHMSA could not confirm that Spectra\npersonnel had performed the required consultation with the company’s Metallurgical Services\nDepartment to determine the appropriate removal method.4 In addition, Spectra allegedly could\nnot provide any documentation that it had used an oxyacetylene gouging tip, and in fact,\nsubsequent to a May 29, 2014 meeting with PHMSA, confirmed that it had used a standard torch\ntip to remove the casing, contrary to the company’s own procedures.\nIn its Response, Spectra acknowledged that it did not follow its own standard written procedures\nwhile removing the casing pipe on Line 10. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.605(a) by failing to follow its own manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.202, which states:\n§ 199.202 Alcohol misuse plan.\nEach operator must maintain and follow a written alcohol misuse\nplan that conforms to the requirements of this part and DOT Procedures\nconcerning alcohol testing programs. The plan shall contain methods\nand procedures for compliance with all the requirements of this subpart,\nincluding required testing, recordkeeping, reporting, education, and\ntraining elements.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.202 by failing to follow its own\nwritten alcohol misuse plan in accordance with § 199.202.5 Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nSpectra failed to follow its own procedure setting a maximum time frame in which an employee\nmust be tested for alcohol following an accident. According to the Notice, Spectra’s written\nalcohol misuse plan, Section VI. Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program, states:\n“Post-Accident Testing:…A post-accident alcohol test shall be conducted\non each employee as soon as possible but no later than 8 hours after the\naccident…”\nIn a series of emails with PHMSA, Spectra identified the employees involved in cutting the\ncasing, and acknowledged that alcohol testing was done “outside the 8-hour window.”\n4 Violation Report, at 6.\n5 Violation Report, at 11.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 5\nIn its Response, Spectra did not contest this allegation of violation.6 Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.202 by failing to\nfollow its own written alcohol misuse plan.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(2)(i), which states:\n§ 199.225 Alcohol tests required.\nEach operator shall conduct the following types of alcohol tests for\nthe presence of alcohol:\n(a) Post-accident. (1) …\n(2)(i) If a test required by this section is not administered within 2\nhours following the accident, the operator shall prepare and maintain on\nfile a record stating the reasons the test was not promptly administered.\nIf a test required by paragraph (a) is not administered within 8 hours\nfollowing the accident, the operator shall cease attempts to administer an\nalcohol test and shall state in the record the reasons for not administering\nthe test.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(2)(i) by failing to prepare\nand maintain a record stating the reasons for not promptly administering an alcohol test within\ntwo hours following an accident. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Spectra only tested its\nemployees for drugs and alcohol 26 hours after the Incident, and provided a June 18, 2014 email\nas its only record detailing why testing was not done within two hours of the Incident. PHMSA\nnoted that both the testing (after 26 hours), and the late record (one month after the Incident)\nwere contrary to § 199.225(a)(2)(i).\nIn its Response, Spectra did not contest the allegation of violation.7 Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(2)(i) by\nfailing to prepare and maintain a record stating the reasons for not promptly administering a test\nwithin two hours following an accident.\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. 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\n6 Response, at 4.\n7 Response, at 6-7.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 6\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 $239,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $172,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own written procedures regarding the removal of\nsplit casings to minimize the risk of damaging or burning through the carrier pipe. Spectra did\nnot contest the allegation of violation but requested a reduction in the penalty, based upon its\ncontention that assessment factor for “culpability” shown in Part E8 of the Violation Report\nshould be reduced because the company took “appropriate and corrective actions” after “the\npinhole leak was discovered and before PHMSA learned of the violation.”8\nI disagree. While the actions Spectra took prior to PHMSA discovering the violation were\nclearly appropriate to protect the safety of its employees and the public, there is no evidence that\nthe company addressed the cause of the non-compliance (i.e., a failure to follow its own written\nprocedures) before PHMSA learned of the non-compliance.9 Spectra eventually addressed the\nnon-compliance, following closely after PHMSA’s investigation. In fact, this accident provides\nan example of how pipeline operators need to follow their own safety procedures in order to\nprevent accidents.\nGiven the importance of these procedures for the safety and integrity of Spectra’s system, and\nthe fact that process-control improvements and new or revised procedures were only introduced\nafter PHMSA took note of the violation, I can find no justification for a penalty reduction.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $172,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 199.202, for failing to follow its own written alcohol misuses plan by neglecting to test\nemployees involved in the accident within eight hours after the accident. Spectra did not contest\nthe allegation of violation but requested a penalty reduction on two grounds.\nFirst, the company argued that the “culpability” assessment factor should be reduced to: “After\nthe operator found the non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the\ncause of the non-compliance, and corrected the non-compliance before PHMSA learned of the\nviolation.” According to Spectra, containing the Incident took priority over its responsibility to\ntest for alcohol misuse, which was eventually completed 26 hours later. Second, the company\ncontended that it should receive a “good faith” penalty reduction because the failure to perform\nalcohol testing was due to a reasonable desire to avoid disrupting its response to the Incident.\nAgain, I see no reason for a penalty reduction. Spectra itself established its alcohol misuse\n8 Response, at 3.\n9 If Spectra itself had discovered the non-compliance and took documented action to address the cause of the non-\ncompliance before PHMSA discovered the violation, Respondant would potentially qualify for a reduced penalty.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 7\npolicy, and there is nothing in the record to show that Spectra had any reasonable confusion\nabout the clarity of the 8-hour testing requirement.10 In addition, there is nothing in the record to\nshow that Spectra was taking steps to correct its non-compliance before PHMSA discovered the\nviolation. Operators are required and expected to manage multiple responsibilities during\nIncidents without ignoring certain basic regulatory requirements related to the accident. Finally,\nthe clear mandates of the alcohol misuse testing are particularly important, given their\nrelationship to the possible causes of accidents and the prevention of future incidents.\nGiven the importance of drug and alcohol testing to incident investigations and the clarity of the\nrequirement, I can find no justification for reducing the penalty when Spectra could have allotted\nthe necessary resources to perform timely alcohol testing. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,300 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.202.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 199.225(a), for failing to prepare and maintain a record stating the reasons for not promptly\nadministering an alcohol test within two hours following the May 16 accident. Spectra did not\ncontest this Item, but argued for mitigation of the penalty based upon its good-faith efforts to\ncontain the accident, which allegedly caused its failure to prepare and maintain a proper record.\nAs noted above, the regulations contemplate that operators should be able to perform all of their\nsafety responsibilities in the aftermath of an accident and do not allow for ad-hoc prioritizing.\nDrug and alcohol testing are a time-sensitive responsibility that the regulations address\nspecifically in order to immediately test employees whose conduct could have led to an accident\nand thus prevent future accidents. Further, not only did Spectra fail to administer a timely\nalcohol test but the document or record providing the context for that failure was not created\ncontemporaneously but was transmitted by email to PHMSA more than a month after the\nincident. Both the specific requirements of the regulations and the purpose behind them were\nboth subverted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,\nI assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a).\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 $239,200.\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, 6500 S\nMacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division\ntelephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $239,200 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\n10 Violation Report at 14-16.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1025\nPage 8\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.\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.\nDecember 29, 2016\n___________________________________ _______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":21040}