CPF 120171004W
CPF 120171004W
party submissionOfficial PDF120171004W_Operator Response to Notice_03032017.pdf#
120171004W_Warning Letter_02062017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFWARNING LETTER OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY February 6, 2017 J. Andrew Drake Vice President, Operations & EHS Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Spectra Energy Partners, LP) 5400 Westheimer Court Houston, TX 77056 CPF 1-2017-1004W Dear Mr. Drake: On August 16, 2015, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your Bailey East Mine Panel 1L Project in Greene County, Pennsylvania. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation is: 1. §192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards. Each transmission line or main must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with this part. Texas Eastern Transmission LP (Spectra Energy Partners, LP) failed to construct transmission pipelines on the Holbrook Discharge Bailey East Mine Panel L1 Project in Greene County, Pennsylvania in accordance with §192.303. Specifically, Texas Eastern failed to follow its construction specification number CS-PL 1.7, Section I of II revised 12/12/2012, paragraph 13E5.4. The procedure states in part: “When using the high voltage type holiday detectors (13C12.1), holiday inspection along the ROW shall be 3000V for single layer FBE…” During the inspection, a PHMSA inspector observed holiday detection (jeeping) on the L30 segment of the Holbrook Discharge Bailey East Mine Panel L1 Project. Jeeping was being conducted along the ROW on single layer FBE. Construction personnel confirmed the voltage setting on the Spy model 780 high voltage holiday detector that was being utilized. The voltage setting displayed was 2350V. Thus, Texas Eastern failed to follow its written specification by using 2350V for jeeping single layer FBE on the ROW instead of the required 3000V.#
120171004W_Warning Letter_02062017_text.pdf, page 21-2017-1004W Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $205,638 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,056,380 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring between January 4, 2012 to August 1, 2016, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Texas Eastern Transmission LP (Spectra Energy Corporation) being subject to additional enforcement action. No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to CPF 1- 2017-1004W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Sincerely, Robert Burrough Acting Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 120171004W_Warning Letter_02062017_text Page 2 of 2#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.