{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220131002W","title":"EAST TENNESSEE NATURAL GAS, LLC (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-03-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.609(a), 192.611(d)(2), 192.907(a), 192.917(e)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220131002w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220131002w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220131002w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220131002W","body":"Warning Letter involving EAST TENNESSEE NATURAL GAS, LLC (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.609(a),  192.611(d)(2),  192.907(a),  192.917(e)(3). The case was opened on 2013-03-19 and is reported as closed as of 2013-03-19. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220131002W_Operator Response_04182013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220131002W/220131002W_Operator%20Response_04182013.pdf\n\n220131002W_warning letter_03192013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220131002W/220131002W_warning%20letter_03192013.pdf\n\n220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220131002W/220131002W_warning%20letter_03192013_text.pdf\n\n220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 19, 2013\nMr. Theopolis Holeman\nGroup Vice President of U.S. Operations\nEast Tennessee Natural Gas Company\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, TX 77056\nCPF 2-2013-1002W\nDear Holeman:\nFrom May 21, 2012, to October 25, 2012, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected East Tennessee Natural Gas\nCompany (ETNG) records and facilities at ETNG’s Houston headquarters office and in\nTennessee and Virginia. ETNG is a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Corporation.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that ETNG has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are as follows:\n1. § 192.609 Change in class location: Required study.\nWhenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class location for a\nsegment of an existing steel pipeline operating at a hoop stress that is more than 40\npercent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress corresponding to the established\nmaximum allowable operating pressure for a segment of existing pipeline is not\ncommensurate with the present class location, the operator shall immediately make a\nstudy to determine;\n(a) The present class location for the segment involved.\nETNG did not immediately make a study to determine the present class location of a\npipeline segment when an increase in population density occurred along its existing steel\npipeline operating at a hoop stress of more than 40 percent of the specified minimum yield\nstrength (SMYS).\n\n\n\n2. 3. Class location field reports show that ETNG conducted a class location field survey of the\nSamick Music Company office building when the building was under construction in\nDecember 2006. ETNG did not, however, provide any evidence to show that it made an\nimmediate class location study of the population density increase along a ±785-ft segment\nof its Line 3100-1 in Gallatin, TN, caused by the Samick Music Company warehouse at\n1329 Gateway Drive, Gallatin, TN. In fact, an ETNG memorandum conveyed that the\nabove-referenced change to a Class 3 location1 near the Samick warehouse occurred as\npart of a class location change on Line 3100-1 between stations 314+73 and 372+14 on\nJuly 7, 2009 (the date of the memorandum) - not circa September 2007.\nPHMSA’s inspector interviewed the Samick Music Company credit manager on site on\nSeptember 6, 2012, and again via telephone on December 18, 2012. The manager stated\nthat the warehouse had been occupied since September 2007 with at least 20 employees\nwho worked for 5 days per week for more than 10 weeks per year.2 That is, the Samick\nMusic Company warehouse at 1329 Gateway Dr., Gallatin, TN, met the Class 3 location\noccupancy and location criteria circa September 2007 but ETNG did not make a class\nlocation study of the population density increase until July 7, 2009; i.e. ~ 22 months after\nthe population density first increased along the pipeline.\n§ 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable\noperating pressure.\n. . . (d) Confirmation or revision of the maximum allowable operating pressure that\nis required as a result of a study under §192.609 must be completed within 24\nmonths of the change in class location. Pressure reduction under paragraph (a) (1) or\n(2) of this section within the 24-month period does not preclude establishing a\nmaximum allowable operating pressure under paragraph (a)(3) of this section at a\nlater date.\nETNG did not confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of a\nsegment of Line 3100-1 in Gallatin, TN, within 24 months of a change in class location.\nA change to a Class 3 location occurred along a ±785-ft segment of ETNG’s Line 3100-1\nin Gallatin, TN, circa September 2007 due to the Samick Music warehouse (see Item 1\nabove). According to ETNG’s records, the hoop stress corresponding to the established\nMAOP of approximately 470 feet of pipe within the referenced class change segment was\nnot commensurate with the present Class 3 location. While ETNG replaced the segment\nwith pipe complying with the MAOP requirements of §192.619(a), it did not do so until\nMay 2011, more than 19 months after the allowed 24-month time period had expired and\nmore than 43 months after the change in class location.\n§ 192.907 What must an operator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a covered pipeline\nsegment must develop and follow a written integrity management program . . . .\n1 See §192.5(b) for definitions of class locations\n2 See §192.5(b)(3)(ii)\n2\n\n\n\n4. ETNG did not follow its written integrity management (IM) program because it did not\nexcavate the pipeline within the time period specified in its written IM procedures.\nETNG’s written IM procedure Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA)\nProcedure Number: 9-2040 (10/17/2011), Section 6.3.2 states, “If Category 1 SCC is\nfound in an excavation, additional integrity assessment(s) will be undertaken within 12\nmonths at the most suitable site within the limits of the HCA [High Consequence Area]…”\nNotwithstanding the above procedure, ETNG discovered a Category 1 high-ph stress\ncorrosion crack (SCC) on its Dixon Springs Discharge Line 3100-1 on September 22,\n2009, in a non-HCA area but did not conduct an additional excavation within 12 months\nof finding the Category 1 SCC. ETNG conducted an additional SCC excavation within\nthe limits of an HCA (as required by SOP 9-2040) on October 5, 2011; 1 year and 13 days\nafter the required excavation date.\n§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and\nuse the threat identification in its integrity program?\n. . . (e) Actions to address particular threats. If an operator identifies any of the\nfollowing threats, the operator must take the following actions to address the threat.\n. . . (3) Manufacturing and construction defects. If an operator identifies the threat of\nmanufacturing and construction defects (including seam defects) in the covered\nsegment, an operator must analyze the covered segment to determine the risk of\nfailure from these defects. The analysis must consider the results of prior\nassessments on the covered segment. An operator may consider manufacturing and\nconstruction related defects to be stable defects if the operating pressure on the\ncovered segment has not increased over the maximum operating pressure\nexperienced during the five years preceding identification of the high consequence\narea. If any of the following changes occur in the covered segment, an operator must\nprioritize the covered segment as a high risk segment for the baseline assessment or a\nsubsequent reassessment.\n(i) Operating pressure increases above the maximum operating pressure experienced\nduring the preceding five years;\nETNG did not adequately identify and properly use potential threats to each covered\npipeline segment in its integrity program because it failed to address particular threats\nrelated to manufacturing.\nTable I below shows data provided by ETNG. The 29 covered segments listed in the table\nwere identified by ETNG as having materials known to be possible manufacturing threats\nand as being susceptible to increases in pressure, including pipe with low frequency\nelectric resistance welded (LF ERW) longitudinal seams.\nTable I\n3\n\n\n\nDischarge Line MAOP 5 YR\nMOP\n5 YR MOP\nTimestamp\nExcursion\nYear (Max\nPressure,\npsi)\nHCA No. Orig\nHCA\nLF ERW\nor\nYear\nof\nPipe\nLength 125%\nTest\nyear\nof test\nDiameter WT Grade Stress @ Length of Comments\n5-00341 2004 YES 1953 2830 N 16 0.250 42000 53.8% 2830\n5-00146 2004 YES 1953 2672 N 1976 16 0.250 52000 0.0% 1479 1976 test\ncovers the\n1193' of\n1976 pipe\nwhich is not\nsusceptible\n5-00472 2006 YES 1953 1299 Y / N 2008 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 1267 111' of\nsusceptible\npipe not\ntested on\nends of HCA\n5-00473 2006 YES 1953 960 N 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 739\nBOYDS CREEK 3300-1 706 704 1/30/03 2 00\n2008 (705),\n2007 (706),\n2006 (705)\n5-00147 2004 YES 1953 1846 N 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 1846\n5-00383 2005 YES 1953 2207 N 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 2207\nFLATWOODS 3300-1 706 704 1/30/03 2 00 2011 (706),\n2006 (706)\n5-00143 2004 YES 1971 /\n1953\n4868 N 16 0.250 42000 53.8% 4826\n5-00187 2004 YES 1964 1339 N 8.625 0.188 42000 50.5% 1339\nGLADE\nSPRING 3300-1 924 921 10/14/03\n5 00\n2009 (923),\n2008 (926),\n2007 (925)\nLEWISBURG 3200-1 823 819 1/29/03\n17 00\n2011 (832),\n2010 (840),\n2009 (821),\n2008 (832),\n2007 (832),\n2006 (830)\n5-02101 2007 YES 1950 1130 N 12.75 0.25 42000 50.0% 1061\n5-00291 2004 YES 1950 1082 N 4.5 0.188 42000 23.5% 1082\nLEWISBURG\n3206A-\n100 823 819\n1/29/03\n17 00\n2008 (828),\n2007 (829),\n2006 (826)\n5-00173 2004 YES 1951 570 N 4.5 0.188 35000 0.0% 567\n5-00174 2004 YES 1951 1832 N 4.5 0.188 35000 0.0% 1806\n5-00210 2004 YES 1950 1140 N 12.75 0.25 42000 54.6% 1140\n5-00211 2004 YES 1950 792 N 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 792\n5-00212 2004 YES 1950, 3416 N 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 3316\nLOBELVILLE 3200-1 900 900\n12/6/00\n18 59 2006 (907)\n5-00213 2004 YES 1950 1526 N 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 1526\nLOBELVILLE 3203A-\n800\n670 611 4/9/06 8 35 2007 (569),\n2006 (611)\n5-00152 2004 YES 1953 185 N 3.5 0.216 35000 15.5% 185\nMADISONVIL\nLE\n3200-1 610 610 3/28/02 3 14 2010 (624),\n2006 (614)\n5-00219 2004 YES 1950 /\n1976\n2719 Y 12.75 0.25 42000 37.0% 2690 125%MAOP\npost\nconstruction\ngas test\n5-00273 2004 YES 1953 1732 N 16 0.25 42000 48.8% 1732\n5-00274 2004 YES 1953 1890 N 16 0.25 42000 0.0% 1890\nTOPSIDE 3300-1 640 640 4/7/06 17 15 2010 (642)\n5-02994 2010 YES 1953 971 N 16 0.25 42000 0.0% 971\n5-00232 2004 YES 1950 1193 Y 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 1193 125%MAOP\npost\nconstruction\ngas test\nOOLTEWAH 3200-1 649 649 1/30/04 3 15\n2010 (662),\n2009 (657),\n2007 (657),\n2006 (657),\n2005 (655)\n5-03542 2012 YES 1950 898 Y 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 898 125%MAOP\npost\nconstruction\ngas test\n5-00284 2004 YES 1950 1241 Y 16 0.281 35000 0.0% 1241 125%MAOP\npost\nconstruction\ngas test\n5-00286 2004 YES 1950 1315 Y 16 0.281 35000 0.0% 1315 125%MAOP\npost\nconstruction\ngas test\nWARTBURG 3100-1 773 724 7/9/04 15 15\n2011 (735),\n2010 (734),\n2009 (737),\n2008 (730)\n5-00425 2005 YES 1950 866 Y 16 0.281 35000 0.0% 866 125%MAOP\npost\nconstruction\ngas test\n5-00250 2004 YES 1965 2096 N 8.625 0.188 42000 0.0% 1695\n5-00251 2004 YES 1965 2724 N 8.625 0.219 42000 0.0% 2724\nRURAL\nRETREAT 3300-1 915 914\n1/18/03\n14 00 2006 (919)\n5-00253 2004 YES 1965 3163 N 8.625 0.188 42000 0.0% 1716\nDiscussions with ETNG’s subject matter experts on June 20, 2012, and information\nprovided to the PHMSA inspector subsequent to the inspection revealed that ETNG\ntreated the covered segments listed in Table I as stable manufacturing-related threats, and\n4\n\n\n\ndid not prioritize them as high risk segments for a baseline assessment or a subsequent\nreassessment.\nETNG used the wrong criteria in evaluating pressure increases. The covered segments in\nthe table experienced operating pressure increases above the maximum operating pressure\nduring the five years preceding the identification of an HCA (5-year MOP). As such,\nthese segments should have been prioritized as high risk segments for the baseline\nassessment or a subsequent reassessment. But ETNG based its criteria for identifying and\nprioritizing covered segments as high risk requiring additional assessment on exceeding\n104% of the 5-year MOP. In fact, in its November 08, 2012, response, ETNG stated,\n“None of the HCA segments with an established 5-year MOP exceeded the 4% threshold.\nThus the affected HCA segments had not been scheduled for an assessment or\nreassessment.”\nIn essence, by adding a 4% margin to the 5-year MOP ETNG missed at least 29 covered\nsegments that should have been identified and prioritized as high risk segments and\nsubjected to additional actions to address the threat in baseline assessments or subsequent\nreassessments.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct\nthe items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in East Tennessee Natural Gas\nCompany being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2013-1002W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document\nwith the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":14357}