# TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120151025_Final Order_12292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_Final%20Order_12292016.pdf

120151025_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_Final%20Order_12292016_text.pdf

120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015.pdf

120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_NOPV_PCP_09292015_text.pdf

120151025_Operator Response to Notice_11122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151025/120151025_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11122015.pdf

120151025_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf

December 29, 2016
Mr. Gregory L. Ebel
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Spectra Energy Partners, LP
5400 Westheimer Court
Houston, TX77056-5310
Re: CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Dear Mr. Ebel:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty
of $239,200. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement
action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by certified
mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Acting Regional Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA, OPS
Mr. William T. Yardley, President US Transmissions, Spectra Energy Corporation
Mr. Rick Kivela, Director, Operational Compliance, Spectra Energy Partners, LP
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_________________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, )
a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Partners, LP, )
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
) CPF No. 1-2015-1025
FINAL ORDER
On May 22 and 23, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an investigation into an incident that occurred on Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP’s (Texas Eastern) 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline, known as Line 10
(located approximately two miles from Carmichael, Pennsylvania), on May 16, 2014, at
11:15 a.m. eastern daylight savings time (Incident). The Incident resulted in $186,437 worth
of property damage.
Texas Eastern is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Spectra Energy Partners, LP (Spectra), a
master limited partnership formed by Spectra Energy Corporation.
1 Texas Eastern operates
9,096 miles of natural gas pipelines connecting Texas and the Gulf with the Northeast.2 For
purposes of this Order, Texas Eastern and Spectra both refer to Respondent and are used
interchangeably.
The Notice alleged that, based on the results of a 2011 in-line inspection, Spectra decided to
excavate Line 10 following the Incident. On May 16, 2014, Spectra uncovered the casing of
Line 10 and proceeded to cut it, using a cutting machine with an attached oxyacetylene torch.
During the cutting process, the welder allegedly heard popping sounds and reversed direction
of the torch, when a resulting hiss and significant flames were observed from the cut. The
fire was immediately extinguished and no injuries, fatalities or supply issues were reported.3
1 See http://www.spectraenergy.com/About/Spectra-Energy-Partners/. Current as of 4/26/2016.
2 See http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operations/US-Natural-Gas-Operations/US-Pipelines/. Current as of
4/26/2016.
3 CPF 1-2015-1025 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, dated September 29, 2015 (Violation Report), at 1-6.



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 3
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated September 29, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and
Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Texas Eastern had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605(a), 199.202 and
199.225(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $239,200 for the alleged violations.
Spectra responded to the Notice on behalf of Texas Eastern by letter dated November 12,
2015 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided an
explanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalties be reduced or
eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Respondent did not contest the following allegations of violation of 49 C.F.R. Parts 192 and 199:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,
a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual
must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This
manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year. This manual
must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.
Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations
and maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities while removing the
casing on Line 10. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Spectra failed to follow its written
procedure, Standard Operating Procedures, Volume 7- Welding, Procedure number 7-2090,
Procedure Name: Safety Requirements, Date: 05/12/2014, Subsection 4.8 Removal of Split
Casings. According to the Notice, that subsection states:
“Welders shall take the following precautionary measures when using a cutting
torch to remove split casing in an effort to minimize the risk of damaging or
burning through the carrier pipe.
1. Prior to cutting, verify the gap between the carrier pipe and casing pipe.
An oxy-acetylene torch may be used for cutting on casings with gaps 2 [inches]
and greater. Consult the Metallurgical Services Department to determine the
appropriate removal method for casings with gaps less than 2 [inches].



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 4
2. Use an oxy-acetylene gouging tip on the cutting torch to direct
the blow of the torch at an angle to the carrier pipe rather than directly
at the carrier pipe.”
The Notice alleged that the precautionary measures enumerated in Subsection 4.8 of the
company’s procedure were not taken during removal of the casing. Spectra allegedly could not
provide any documentation demonstrating that it had verified the distance between the casing
and carrier pipe prior to cutting, and, after investigation, PHMSA could not confirm that Spectra
personnel had performed the required consultation with the company’s Metallurgical Services
Department to determine the appropriate removal method.4 In addition, Spectra allegedly could
not provide any documentation that it had used an oxyacetylene gouging tip, and in fact,
subsequent to a May 29, 2014 meeting with PHMSA, confirmed that it had used a standard torch
tip to remove the casing, contrary to the company’s own procedures.
In its Response, Spectra acknowledged that it did not follow its own standard written procedures
while removing the casing pipe on Line 10. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.605(a) by failing to follow its own manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.202, which states:
§ 199.202 Alcohol misuse plan.
Each operator must maintain and follow a written alcohol misuse
plan that conforms to the requirements of this part and DOT Procedures
concerning alcohol testing programs. The plan shall contain methods
and procedures for compliance with all the requirements of this subpart,
including required testing, recordkeeping, reporting, education, and
training elements.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.202 by failing to follow its own
written alcohol misuse plan in accordance with § 199.202.5 Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Spectra failed to follow its own procedure setting a maximum time frame in which an employee
must be tested for alcohol following an accident. According to the Notice, Spectra’s written
alcohol misuse plan, Section VI. Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program, states:
“Post-Accident Testing:…A post-accident alcohol test shall be conducted
on each employee as soon as possible but no later than 8 hours after the
accident…”
In a series of emails with PHMSA, Spectra identified the employees involved in cutting the
casing, and acknowledged that alcohol testing was done “outside the 8-hour window.”
4 Violation Report, at 6.
5 Violation Report, at 11.



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 5
In its Response, Spectra did not contest this allegation of violation.6 Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.202 by failing to
follow its own written alcohol misuse plan.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(2)(i), which states:
§ 199.225 Alcohol tests required.
Each operator shall conduct the following types of alcohol tests for
the presence of alcohol:
(a) Post-accident. (1) …
(2)(i) If a test required by this section is not administered within 2
hours following the accident, the operator shall prepare and maintain on
file a record stating the reasons the test was not promptly administered.
If a test required by paragraph (a) is not administered within 8 hours
following the accident, the operator shall cease attempts to administer an
alcohol test and shall state in the record the reasons for not administering
the test.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(2)(i) by failing to prepare
and maintain a record stating the reasons for not promptly administering an alcohol test within
two hours following an accident. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Spectra only tested its
employees for drugs and alcohol 26 hours after the Incident, and provided a June 18, 2014 email
as its only record detailing why testing was not done within two hours of the Incident. PHMSA
noted that both the testing (after 26 hours), and the late record (one month after the Incident)
were contrary to § 199.225(a)(2)(i).
In its Response, Spectra did not contest the allegation of violation.7 Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(2)(i) by
failing to prepare and maintain a record stating the reasons for not promptly administering a test
within two hours following an accident.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
6 Response, at 4.
7 Response, at 6-7.



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 6
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $239,200 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $172,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own written procedures regarding the removal of
split casings to minimize the risk of damaging or burning through the carrier pipe. Spectra did
not contest the allegation of violation but requested a reduction in the penalty, based upon its
contention that assessment factor for “culpability” shown in Part E8 of the Violation Report
should be reduced because the company took “appropriate and corrective actions” after “the
pinhole leak was discovered and before PHMSA learned of the violation.”8
I disagree. While the actions Spectra took prior to PHMSA discovering the violation were
clearly appropriate to protect the safety of its employees and the public, there is no evidence that
the company addressed the cause of the non-compliance (i.e., a failure to follow its own written
procedures) before PHMSA learned of the non-compliance.9 Spectra eventually addressed the
non-compliance, following closely after PHMSA’s investigation. In fact, this accident provides
an example of how pipeline operators need to follow their own safety procedures in order to
prevent accidents.
Given the importance of these procedures for the safety and integrity of Spectra’s system, and
the fact that process-control improvements and new or revised procedures were only introduced
after PHMSA took note of the violation, I can find no justification for a penalty reduction.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $172,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.202, for failing to follow its own written alcohol misuses plan by neglecting to test
employees involved in the accident within eight hours after the accident. Spectra did not contest
the allegation of violation but requested a penalty reduction on two grounds.
First, the company argued that the “culpability” assessment factor should be reduced to: “After
the operator found the non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the
cause of the non-compliance, and corrected the non-compliance before PHMSA learned of the
violation.” According to Spectra, containing the Incident took priority over its responsibility to
test for alcohol misuse, which was eventually completed 26 hours later. Second, the company
contended that it should receive a “good faith” penalty reduction because the failure to perform
alcohol testing was due to a reasonable desire to avoid disrupting its response to the Incident.
Again, I see no reason for a penalty reduction. Spectra itself established its alcohol misuse
8 Response, at 3.
9 If Spectra itself had discovered the non-compliance and took documented action to address the cause of the non-
compliance before PHMSA discovered the violation, Respondant would potentially qualify for a reduced penalty.



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 7
policy, and there is nothing in the record to show that Spectra had any reasonable confusion
about the clarity of the 8-hour testing requirement.10 In addition, there is nothing in the record to
show that Spectra was taking steps to correct its non-compliance before PHMSA discovered the
violation. Operators are required and expected to manage multiple responsibilities during
Incidents without ignoring certain basic regulatory requirements related to the accident. Finally,
the clear mandates of the alcohol misuse testing are particularly important, given their
relationship to the possible causes of accidents and the prevention of future incidents.
Given the importance of drug and alcohol testing to incident investigations and the clarity of the
requirement, I can find no justification for reducing the penalty when Spectra could have allotted
the necessary resources to perform timely alcohol testing. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,300 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.202.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.225(a), for failing to prepare and maintain a record stating the reasons for not promptly
administering an alcohol test within two hours following the May 16 accident. Spectra did not
contest this Item, but argued for mitigation of the penalty based upon its good-faith efforts to
contain the accident, which allegedly caused its failure to prepare and maintain a proper record.
As noted above, the regulations contemplate that operators should be able to perform all of their
safety responsibilities in the aftermath of an accident and do not allow for ad-hoc prioritizing.
Drug and alcohol testing are a time-sensitive responsibility that the regulations address
specifically in order to immediately test employees whose conduct could have led to an accident
and thus prevent future accidents. Further, not only did Spectra fail to administer a timely
alcohol test but the document or record providing the context for that failure was not created
contemporaneously but was transmitted by email to PHMSA more than a month after the
incident. Both the specific requirements of the regulations and the purpose behind them were
both subverted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,
I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $239,200.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 S
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division
telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $239,200 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
10 Violation Report at 14-16.



CPF No. 1-2015-1025
Page 8
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including
any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final
Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is
waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 29, 2016
___________________________________ _______________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 21040