EAST TENNESSEE NATURAL GAS, LLC (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Warning Letter

party submissionOfficial PDF220131002W_Operator Response_04182013.pdf#

220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFWARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED March 19, 2013 Mr. Theopolis Holeman Group Vice President of U.S. Operations East Tennessee Natural Gas Company 5400 Westheimer Court Houston, TX 77056 CPF 2-2013-1002W Dear Holeman: From May 21, 2012, to October 25, 2012, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (ETNG) records and facilities at ETNG’s Houston headquarters office and in Tennessee and Virginia. ETNG is a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Corporation. As a result of the inspection, it appears that ETNG has committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are as follows: 1. § 192.609 Change in class location: Required study. Whenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class location for a segment of an existing steel pipeline operating at a hoop stress that is more than 40 percent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress corresponding to the established maximum allowable operating pressure for a segment of existing pipeline is not commensurate with the present class location, the operator shall immediately make a study to determine; (a) The present class location for the segment involved. ETNG did not immediately make a study to determine the present class location of a pipeline segment when an increase in population density occurred along its existing steel pipeline operating at a hoop stress of more than 40 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).#

220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf, page 22. 3. Class location field reports show that ETNG conducted a class location field survey of the Samick Music Company office building when the building was under construction in December 2006. ETNG did not, however, provide any evidence to show that it made an immediate class location study of the population density increase along a ±785-ft segment of its Line 3100-1 in Gallatin, TN, caused by the Samick Music Company warehouse at 1329 Gateway Drive, Gallatin, TN. In fact, an ETNG memorandum conveyed that the above-referenced change to a Class 3 location1 near the Samick warehouse occurred as part of a class location change on Line 3100-1 between stations 314+73 and 372+14 on July 7, 2009 (the date of the memorandum) - not circa September 2007. PHMSA’s inspector interviewed the Samick Music Company credit manager on site on September 6, 2012, and again via telephone on December 18, 2012. The manager stated that the warehouse had been occupied since September 2007 with at least 20 employees who worked for 5 days per week for more than 10 weeks per year.2 That is, the Samick Music Company warehouse at 1329 Gateway Dr., Gallatin, TN, met the Class 3 location occupancy and location criteria circa September 2007 but ETNG did not make a class location study of the population density increase until July 7, 2009; i.e. ~ 22 months after the population density first increased along the pipeline. § 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure. . . . (d) Confirmation or revision of the maximum allowable operating pressure that is required as a result of a study under §192.609 must be completed within 24 months of the change in class location. Pressure reduction under paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section within the 24-month period does not preclude establishing a maximum allowable operating pressure under paragraph (a)(3) of this section at a later date. ETNG did not confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of a segment of Line 3100-1 in Gallatin, TN, within 24 months of a change in class location. A change to a Class 3 location occurred along a ±785-ft segment of ETNG’s Line 3100-1 in Gallatin, TN, circa September 2007 due to the Samick Music warehouse (see Item 1 above). According to ETNG’s records, the hoop stress corresponding to the established MAOP of approximately 470 feet of pipe within the referenced class change segment was not commensurate with the present Class 3 location. While ETNG replaced the segment with pipe complying with the MAOP requirements of §192.619(a), it did not do so until May 2011, more than 19 months after the allowed 24-month time period had expired and more than 43 months after the change in class location. § 192.907 What must an operator do to implement this subpart? (a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity management program . . . . 1 See §192.5(b) for definitions of class locations 2 See §192.5(b)(3)(ii) 2#

220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf, page 34. ETNG did not follow its written integrity management (IM) program because it did not excavate the pipeline within the time period specified in its written IM procedures. ETNG’s written IM procedure Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA) Procedure Number: 9-2040 (10/17/2011), Section 6.3.2 states, “If Category 1 SCC is found in an excavation, additional integrity assessment(s) will be undertaken within 12 months at the most suitable site within the limits of the HCA [High Consequence Area]…” Notwithstanding the above procedure, ETNG discovered a Category 1 high-ph stress corrosion crack (SCC) on its Dixon Springs Discharge Line 3100-1 on September 22, 2009, in a non-HCA area but did not conduct an additional excavation within 12 months of finding the Category 1 SCC. ETNG conducted an additional SCC excavation within the limits of an HCA (as required by SOP 9-2040) on October 5, 2011; 1 year and 13 days after the required excavation date. § 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program? . . . (e) Actions to address particular threats. If an operator identifies any of the following threats, the operator must take the following actions to address the threat. . . . (3) Manufacturing and construction defects. If an operator identifies the threat of manufacturing and construction defects (including seam defects) in the covered segment, an operator must analyze the covered segment to determine the risk of failure from these defects. The analysis must consider the results of prior assessments on the covered segment. An operator may consider manufacturing and construction related defects to be stable defects if the operating pressure on the covered segment has not increased over the maximum operating pressure experienced during the five years preceding identification of the high consequence area. If any of the following changes occur in the covered segment, an operator must prioritize the covered segment as a high risk segment for the baseline assessment or a subsequent reassessment. (i) Operating pressure increases above the maximum operating pressure experienced during the preceding five years; ETNG did not adequately identify and properly use potential threats to each covered pipeline segment in its integrity program because it failed to address particular threats related to manufacturing. Table I below shows data provided by ETNG. The 29 covered segments listed in the table were identified by ETNG as having materials known to be possible manufacturing threats and as being susceptible to increases in pressure, including pipe with low frequency electric resistance welded (LF ERW) longitudinal seams. Table I 3#

220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf, page 4Discharge Line MAOP 5 YR MOP 5 YR MOP Timestamp Excursion Year (Max Pressure, psi) HCA No. Orig HCA LF ERW or Year of Pipe Length 125% Test year of test Diameter WT Grade Stress @ Length of Comments 5-00341 2004 YES 1953 2830 N 16 0.250 42000 53.8% 2830 5-00146 2004 YES 1953 2672 N 1976 16 0.250 52000 0.0% 1479 1976 test covers the 1193' of 1976 pipe which is not susceptible 5-00472 2006 YES 1953 1299 Y / N 2008 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 1267 111' of susceptible pipe not tested on ends of HCA 5-00473 2006 YES 1953 960 N 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 739 BOYDS CREEK 3300-1 706 704 1/30/03 2 00 2008 (705), 2007 (706), 2006 (705) 5-00147 2004 YES 1953 1846 N 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 1846 5-00383 2005 YES 1953 2207 N 16 0.250 42000 0.0% 2207 FLATWOODS 3300-1 706 704 1/30/03 2 00 2011 (706), 2006 (706) 5-00143 2004 YES 1971 / 1953 4868 N 16 0.250 42000 53.8% 4826 5-00187 2004 YES 1964 1339 N 8.625 0.188 42000 50.5% 1339 GLADE SPRING 3300-1 924 921 10/14/03 5 00 2009 (923), 2008 (926), 2007 (925) LEWISBURG 3200-1 823 819 1/29/03 17 00 2011 (832), 2010 (840), 2009 (821), 2008 (832), 2007 (832), 2006 (830) 5-02101 2007 YES 1950 1130 N 12.75 0.25 42000 50.0% 1061 5-00291 2004 YES 1950 1082 N 4.5 0.188 42000 23.5% 1082 LEWISBURG 3206A- 100 823 819 1/29/03 17 00 2008 (828), 2007 (829), 2006 (826) 5-00173 2004 YES 1951 570 N 4.5 0.188 35000 0.0% 567 5-00174 2004 YES 1951 1832 N 4.5 0.188 35000 0.0% 1806 5-00210 2004 YES 1950 1140 N 12.75 0.25 42000 54.6% 1140 5-00211 2004 YES 1950 792 N 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 792 5-00212 2004 YES 1950, 3416 N 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 3316 LOBELVILLE 3200-1 900 900 12/6/00 18 59 2006 (907) 5-00213 2004 YES 1950 1526 N 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 1526 LOBELVILLE 3203A- 800 670 611 4/9/06 8 35 2007 (569), 2006 (611) 5-00152 2004 YES 1953 185 N 3.5 0.216 35000 15.5% 185 MADISONVIL LE 3200-1 610 610 3/28/02 3 14 2010 (624), 2006 (614) 5-00219 2004 YES 1950 / 1976 2719 Y 12.75 0.25 42000 37.0% 2690 125%MAOP post construction gas test 5-00273 2004 YES 1953 1732 N 16 0.25 42000 48.8% 1732 5-00274 2004 YES 1953 1890 N 16 0.25 42000 0.0% 1890 TOPSIDE 3300-1 640 640 4/7/06 17 15 2010 (642) 5-02994 2010 YES 1953 971 N 16 0.25 42000 0.0% 971 5-00232 2004 YES 1950 1193 Y 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 1193 125%MAOP post construction gas test OOLTEWAH 3200-1 649 649 1/30/04 3 15 2010 (662), 2009 (657), 2007 (657), 2006 (657), 2005 (655) 5-03542 2012 YES 1950 898 Y 12.75 0.25 42000 0.0% 898 125%MAOP post construction gas test 5-00284 2004 YES 1950 1241 Y 16 0.281 35000 0.0% 1241 125%MAOP post construction gas test 5-00286 2004 YES 1950 1315 Y 16 0.281 35000 0.0% 1315 125%MAOP post construction gas test WARTBURG 3100-1 773 724 7/9/04 15 15 2011 (735), 2010 (734), 2009 (737), 2008 (730) 5-00425 2005 YES 1950 866 Y 16 0.281 35000 0.0% 866 125%MAOP post construction gas test 5-00250 2004 YES 1965 2096 N 8.625 0.188 42000 0.0% 1695 5-00251 2004 YES 1965 2724 N 8.625 0.219 42000 0.0% 2724 RURAL RETREAT 3300-1 915 914 1/18/03 14 00 2006 (919) 5-00253 2004 YES 1965 3163 N 8.625 0.188 42000 0.0% 1716 Discussions with ETNG’s subject matter experts on June 20, 2012, and information provided to the PHMSA inspector subsequent to the inspection revealed that ETNG treated the covered segments listed in Table I as stable manufacturing-related threats, and 4#

220131002W_warning letter_03192013_text.pdf, page 5did not prioritize them as high risk segments for a baseline assessment or a subsequent reassessment. ETNG used the wrong criteria in evaluating pressure increases. The covered segments in the table experienced operating pressure increases above the maximum operating pressure during the five years preceding the identification of an HCA (5-year MOP). As such, these segments should have been prioritized as high risk segments for the baseline assessment or a subsequent reassessment. But ETNG based its criteria for identifying and prioritizing covered segments as high risk requiring additional assessment on exceeding 104% of the 5-year MOP. In fact, in its November 08, 2012, response, ETNG stated, “None of the HCA segments with an established 5-year MOP exceeded the 4% threshold. Thus the affected HCA segments had not been scheduled for an assessment or reassessment.” In essence, by adding a 4% margin to the 5-year MOP ETNG missed at least 29 covered segments that should have been identified and prioritized as high risk segments and subjected to additional actions to address the threat in baseline assessments or subsequent reassessments. Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $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 items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in East Tennessee Natural Gas Company 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 2-2013-1002W. 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, Wayne T. Lemoi Director, Office of Pipeline Safety PHMSA Southern Region 5#