{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220191001","title":"SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION, LLC (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-03-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.225(a), 192.235, 192.505(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220191001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220191001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220191001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220191001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION, LLC (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(a),  192.235,  192.505(d). The case was opened on 2019-03-19 and is reported as closed as of 2021-09-02. Proposed civil penalty: $52,500. Assessed civil penalty: $19,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220191001_Closure Letter_09022021_(16-153225S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_Closure%20Letter_09022021_(16-153225S).pdf\n\n220191001_Closure Letter_09022021_(16-153225S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_Closure%20Letter_09022021_(16-153225S)_text.pdf\n\n220191001_Final Order_04102020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_Final%20Order_04102020.pdf\n\n220191001_Final Order_04102020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_Final%20Order_04102020_text.pdf\n\n220191001_NOPV PCP PCO_03192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03192019.pdf\n\n220191001_NOPV PCP PCO_03192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03192019_text.pdf\n\n220191001_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_05312019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220191001/220191001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_05312019.pdf\n\n220191001_NOPV PCP PCO_03192019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 19, 2019\nMs. Michele Harradence\nVice President\nGas Transmission & Midstream Operations\nSabal Trail Transmission, LLC\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, Texas 77056\nCPF 2-2019-1001\nDear Ms. Harradence:\nFrom October 16, 2016 through April 7, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.) inspected construction activities and records related to Sabal Trail Transmission\n(STT) pipeline construction project in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that STT has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.225 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104.\nSTT failed to comply with the regulation because welding was not performed in\naccordance with procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 on at least 2 welds.\nSpecifically, STT did not adhere to the pre-heat requirements specified in the procedure\nqualification record throughout the welding process, as required under Section 5 of\nAPI 1104. API Standard 1104, titled “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,”\n20th Edition, is incorporated by reference in § 192.7.\nSection 5 of API 1104 prescribes the required parameters and variables to be considered\nwhen qualifying a welding procedure. Section 5.4.2.13, titled “Pre-heat,” states that “A\ndecrease in the specified minimum pre-heat temperature constitutes an essential variable.”\nSTT Welding Procedure Specifications (WPS) BCS-422.1 and BCS-122.2 (the primary\n\n\n\nwelding procedures for main line welding and station piping, respectively), were\ndeveloped in accordance with API 1104. These welding procedures were qualified using a\nminimum preheat and interpass temperature of 250° F. A decrease in the minimum\npreheat temperature from the original welding qualification during production requires\nrequalification of the welding procedure.\nRepresentatives of PHMSA observed construction activity at STT’s Hildreth Compressor\nStation on December 5, 2016, and Spread 3 of the main line construction on\nFebruary 1, 2017. PHMSA representatives observed welding being performed in\naccordance with STT’s WPS BCS-122.2 and WPS BCS-422.1, respectively. During these\nsite visits, the PHMSA representatives observed pre-heat temperatures for at least two\nwelds that were not maintained at a minimum of 250° F immediately prior to welding, as\nrequired by the above-referenced welding procedures.\n2. §192.235 Preparation for welding.\nBefore beginning any welding, the welding surfaces must be clean and free of any\nmaterial that may be detrimental to the weld, and the pipe or component must be\naligned to provide the most favorable condition for depositing the root bead. This\nalignment must be preserved while the root bead is being deposited.\nSTT failed to comply with the regulation because the alignment of the pipe or component\nbeing welded was not preserved while the root bead was being deposited.\nAs documented in STT reports, titled “Delayed Weld Examination (ML)” and “Welding\nPreheat Report,” dated March 28, 2017, and January 18, 2018, respectively, STT\nidentified and cut out thirty (30) cracks during construction. Thirteen (13) of these cracks\nwere described as longitudinal crack defects. Per STT’s “Crack Cut Out and Repair Log,”\ndated March 7, 2017, the probable cause was the pipe was moved “before sufficient weld\nmetal was deposited” for several of these welds, refer to the descriptions listed in the\ncolumn labeled, “Comments.”\n3. §192.505 Strength test requirements for steel pipeline to operate at a hoop stress of\n30 percent or more of SMYS.\n(a) …\n(d) For fabricated units and short sections of pipe, for which a post installation test is\nimpractical, a preinstallation strength test must be conducted by maintaining the\npressure for at least 4 hours.\nSTT failed to comply with the regulation because it did not demonstrate that it was\nimpractical to conduct post installation tests for fabricated units and short sections of pipe.\nSpecifically, STT did not demonstrate the impracticality of post installation tests for\nprefabricated main line valve assemblies.\nIn its report, titled “Mainline Valve Hydrostatic Test Assessment Report,” dated January\n18, 2018, the justification provided as to why it was impractical to perform post\ninstallation hydrostatic testing of the mainline valves was that STT wanted to minimize\nthe possibility of damaging the valve seats caused by dirt, debris and weld slag getting\n2\n\n\n\ninto the seats during filling, hydrostatic testing, dewatering and drying of the pipeline.\nUpon PHMSA’s request, however, STT was unable to provide any evidence, historical or\notherwise, of valve seats damaged during a post installation hydrostatic pressure test on\nany previous pipeline construction project. STT also failed to provide any evidence that\nits own valves had been damaged due to dirt, debris and weld slag entering the valve seats\nduring filling, hydrostatic testing, dewatering and drying of the pipeline.\nIt should be noted that PHMSA representatives confirmed that STT complied with the\nrequirements of §§192.503(b)(2) and 192.517(a)(7) which require that dirt, debris and/or\nweld slag be removed during the construction. §192.503(b)(2) states, in part, that, “…The\ntest medium must be liquid…relatively free of sedimentary materials,” and §192.517(a)(7)\nstates, in part, that, “…Each operator shall make, and retain for the useful life of the\npipeline, a record of each test performed under §§192.505 and 192.507. The record must\ncontain at least the following information…Leaks and failures noted and their\ndisposition.” Furthermore, STT Construction Specifications (CS) CSPL1.8 and CS1.5,\ntitled “Onshore Pipeline and Meter Stations,” and “Onshore Compressor Stations,”\nrespectively, state, in part, “Prior to being aligned and welded into the line, each pipe\njoint shall be thoroughly inspected for presence of debris. If debris is visible, each joint\nshall be swabbed to remove all debris to the satisfaction of the Engineer.”\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679\nfor a related series of violations. For violations occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and\nbefore November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to\nNovember 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The\nCompliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved\nin the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a\ncivil penalty of $52,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $52,500\nWarning Items\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, we reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or\npenalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items.\nFailure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\n3\n\n\n\nWith respect to Item 1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sabal Trail Transmission,\nLLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2019-1001 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (STT) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of STT with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to STT’s failure to ensure that welding\nprocesses followed established welding procedures qualified in accordance with API 1104,\nSTT must:\na. Perform an in-line inspection to specifically detect and evaluate cracks in girth welds\nfor the entire pipeline, including laterals. 30 days prior to each run, STT must notify\nthe Director, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), PHMSA Southern Region, of the\nplanned start and completion date(s) of all inspection tool runs.\nb. Provide a written report to the Director, OPS, PHMSA Southern Region, describing\nthe tool or tools to be used. This report shall include the validation for the selected\ntool(s), the tool or tools’ performance specifications, and a detailed description of the\ncriteria to be used for the verification, evaluation, prioritization and corrective action\nof any identified integrity threats.\nc. Perform an analysis of the data returned from the inspection required by 1a. The\nresults shall be evaluated per a performance specification specific to girth weld\nanomalies by qualified individual(s).\nd. e. Excavate a minimum of two girth welds to verify the tool or tools’ performance.\nTake corrective action based the prioritization of any integrity threats and anomalies\nthat are identified. STT shall provide OPS Southern Region written quarterly status\nreports summarizing the integrity threats and anomalies identified and the corrective\naction taken to date.\nf. Make available for OPS inspection all records and documentation showing the\ncompletion of ILI assessment and any corrective actions.\n2. STT must complete the above items within the following time requirements:\na. b. c. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, complete the requirements of Item 1b.\nWithin 180 days of receipt of the Final Order, complete the requirements of Item 1a.\nWithin 30 days of the completion of each run conducted per Item 1a, make available\nfor OPS inspection all records and documentation of completion of the run.\nd. Within 60 days of the successful completion of the ILI run required by Item 1a,\ncomplete the data analysis required by Item 1c.\ne. Within 30 days of the successful completion of the data analysis required by 1c,\ncomplete the excavations required by Item 1d.\nf. Within 30 days of completion of the last corrective action taken per Item 1f, comply\nwith Item 1g.\n5\n\n\n\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that STT maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director,\nOPS, PHMSA Southern Region. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies\nand analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n6\n\n220191001_Final Order_04102020_text.pdf\n\nVIA EMAIL TO: al.monaco@enbridge.com, rick.kivela@enbridge.com, and\nmichele.harradence@enbridge.com\nMr. Al Monaco\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nEnbridge, Inc.\n200, Fifth Avenue Place\n425 - 1st Street S.W.\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3L8\nRe: CPF No. 2-2019-1001\nDear Mr. Monaco:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nSabal Trail Transmission, LLC. It makes one finding of violation, assesses a reduced civil\npenalty of $19,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Sabal Trail Transmission,\nLLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in\nthe Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Rick Kivela, Manager, Operational Compliance, Enbridge, Inc.\nMs. Michele Harradence, Vice President, Gas Transmission & Midstream Operations,\nSabal Trail Transmission, LL\nVIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSabal Trail Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2019-1001\na subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom October 16, 2016, through April 7, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Sabal Trail\nTransmission, LLC (STT or Respondent), in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. STT, a subsidiary\nof Enbridge, Inc., operates a 517-mile interstate natural gas transmission pipeline running\nthrough Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 19, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nSTT had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $52,500 for\nthe alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violation. The warning items required no further action but warned the\noperator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enbridge, Inc., responded to the\nNotice on behalf of STT, by letter dated May 31, 2019 (Response). The company contested one\nof the instances of alleged violation, provided an explanation of its actions, and requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. The company also contested one of the\nwarning items set forth in the Notice, and requested a hearing if the warning item were not\nwithdrawn. However, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, warning items are not\nadjudicated so therefore a hearing is unavailable.\n1 STT’s website, available at http://sabaltrailtransmission.com/ (last accessed March 13, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2019-1001\nPage 2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows::\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a) which states:\n§ 192.225 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator\nin accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5, section 12,\nAppendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §\n192.7), or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME\nBPVC) (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7) to produce welds meeting the\nrequirements of this subpart. The quality of the test welds used to qualify welding\nprocedures must be determined by destructive testing in accordance with the\napplicable welding standard(s).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a) by failing to perform\nwelding in accordance with procedures qualified under Section 5 of API Standard 1104.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA representatives observed pre-heat temperatures for\nat least two welds that were not maintained at a minimum of 250° F immediately prior to\nwelding, as required by API Standard 1104, Section 5.4.2.13, during construction activity at the\nHildreth Compressor Station in December 2016 and on Spread 3 of the main line construction in\nFebruary 2017. The two allegations are discussed below separately.\nHildreth Compressor Station\nThe Notice alleged that the PHMSA representatives observed construction activity at the\nHildreth Compressor Station being performed under STT’s Welding Procedure Specification\nBCS-122.2 (Specification 122.2) and that STT failed to maintain the required pre-heat\ntemperature of 250° F immediately prior to welding.\nIn its Response, STT contested the allegation on several grounds. First, it contended that\nPHMSA did not actually observe inadequate pre-heating at the Hildreth Compressor Station\nduring the inspection but merely expressed “a concern about possible confusion in the pre-heat\nlanguage” in Specification 122.2 regarding preheat requirements.2 Second, it argued that the\nweld was properly made under Specification 122.2 because it provided that the welder must\npreheat to 100º F prior to welding, unless any of five conditions were met, in which case the pre-\nheat temperature had to be 250º F. According to STT, one of those five conditions was whether\nthe ambient temperature was less than or equal to 50º F,3 in which case the pre-heating\n2 Response, at 2.\n3 The other conditions that require a preheat to 250ºF are set forth in the “PREHEATING” section on page 2 of\nSTT’s WPS, BCS-122.2. Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 1, 2019) (on file with\nPHMSA), Exhibit A.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2019-1001\nPage 3\ntemperature had to be 250° F. The company argued that on this particular occasion, the ambient\ntemperature was above 50° F and therefore the pre-heating temperature only needed to be 100°.4\nUpon review of the record, I find that certain information needed to make a finding of violation\nis missing from the record and that PHMSA therefore failed to meet its burden of proving that\nSTT failed to perform welding at the Hildreth Compressor Station in accordance with API 1104.\nFirst, the Notice alleged that the PHMSA representatives actually observed inadequate pre-\nheating immediately prior to welding, but STT claims that they did not. Neither side provided\nany documentation or other evidence to support its position.\nSecond, PHMSA has not provided any evidence to prove that none of the five exceptions to the\n100° pre-heat requirement in Specification 122.2 applied here and that the higher pre-heat\ntemperature of 250° had to be met. Specifically, I cannot find anything in the record that\ndocumented either the actual pre-heat temperature immediately prior to welding or a record of\nthe ambient temperature immediately prior to welding at that location.\nThird, the Region Recommendation stated that the operator did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. This is not accurate. As I read the Response, STT contested this allegation regarding\nthe Hildreth Compressor Station but not the one discussed below. Furthermore, the\nRecommendation failed to address the defenses laid out in the Response and are therefore\nunrefuted.\nFor these reasons, I find that PHMSA has failed to meet its burden of proof in regard to this\ninstance of violation at the Hildreth Compressor Station and therefore order that this allegation of\nviolation be withdrawn.\nSpread 3 of the Main Line\nIn its Response, STT did not contest the allegation of violation that it failed to adhere to pre-heat\ntemperature requirements for welding set forth in API Standard 1104, Section 5.4.2.13 on Spread\n3 of the main line construction in February 2017. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a) by failing to perform welding\nin accordance with welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API Standard 1104 on\nSpread 3 of the main line construction.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken 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\n4 Response, at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2019-1001\nPage 4\nrelated series of violations.5 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $52,500 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $52,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.225(a), for failing to perform welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified\nunder Section 5 of API Std 1104. In its Response, STT requested a reduction in or elimination of\nthe proposed civil penalty. STT alleged that the violation was a single isolated occurrence,\noccurring only on Spread 3 of the mainline construction and not at its Hildreth Compressor\nStation, and that there was a lack of evidence of the potential for hydrogen-assisted cracking\n(HAC) to remain in the girth welds on the STT pipeline and, implicitly, that there was a minimal\nsafety risk.6 STT also noted that it did not gain economic benefit from this violation. I will\naddress each of these arguments below.\nFirst, the one allegation of violation relating to the Hildreth Compressor Station in December\n2016 has been withdrawn. Therefore, I am reducing the number of instances of violation in this\ncase from two to one and lowering the proposed penalty amount accordingly.\nSecond, STT alleged that there is a lack of evidence of the potential for HAC to remain in the\ngirth welds on the STT pipeline. In its Response, the operator noted that modern pipelines do\nnot have a prevalent history of HAC with cellulosic welding, and its pipelines follow this\nhistorical trend due to the use of low-carbon-equivalent pipe under conditions with a low risk of\nHAC. After the PHMSA inspection, STT conducted radiographic testing of all the girth welds to\ndetermine if HAC was a systemic issue on its pipeline, and determined it was not. Part E6 of the\nViolation Report provides that the lowest level of gravity should be attributed to this violation\nsince there was minimal impact on pipeline safety, despite occurring within a high consequence\narea (HCA) or an HCA could-affect area. Accordingly, I find that the penalty assessment\ncriterion for gravity should be reduced from Category 3 to Category 5, thus justifying a\nsubstantial penalty reduction.\nFinally, STT alleged that it did not gain an economic benefit from its non-compliance. However,\nthe proposed civil penalty was not increased based on this assessment criterion. Therefore, I do\nnot find any reason to reduce it based on this factor alone.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited\nabove, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $19,000.\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n6 Response, at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2019-1001\nPage 5\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, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $19,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. §§ 192.225(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.225(a) (Item 1), Respondent must:\na. Within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order, perform an in-line\ninspection to specifically detect and evaluate cracks in girth welds for the\nentire pipeline, including laterals. Thirty days prior to each run, STT must\nnotify the Director of the planned start date(s) and completion date(s) of\nall inspection tool runs, and 30 days after each tool run, must make\navailable for inspection all records and documentation of completion of\nthe run;\nb. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, provide a written report to\nthe Director describing the tool or tools to be used. This report shall\ninclude the validation for the selected tool(s), the tool or tools’\nperformance specifications, and a detailed description of the criteria to be\nused for verification, evaluation, prioritization and corrective action of any\nidentified integrity threats;\nc. Within 90 days of each tool run required under 1(a), perform an analysis\nof the data returned from the inspection. The results shall be evaluated per\na performance specification specific to girth weld anomalies by qualified\nindividual(s);\nd. Within 60 days of completion of 1(c), excavate a minimum of two girth\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2019-1001\nPage 6\ne. f. welds to verity the tool or tools’ performance;7\nTake corrective action(s) based on the prioritization of any integrity\nthreats and anomalies that are identified. STT shall provide the Director\nwritten quarterly status reports summarizing he integrity threats and\nanomalies identified and the corrective action(s) taken to date; and\nMake available for OPS inspection all records and documentation showing\nthe completion of ILI assessment and any corrective actions within 30\ndays of completion of the last corrective action under 1(e).\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.235 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to preserve the\nalignment of the pipe or component being welded while the root bead was being\ndeposited;8 and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.505(d) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct a pre-\ninstallation strength test by maintaining the pressure for at least four hours for\nfabricated units and short sections of pipe.\n7 This requires excavation of a minimum of two girth welds if the same ILI tool is utilized for multiple segments. If\nSTT requires longer than 60 days to perform the excavations, it must request an extension as set forth in the Final\nOrder.\n8 In its Response, STT contested this item and requested a hearing if the item were not withdrawn. In accordance\nwith § 190.205, an operator may submit a response to a warning, but is not required to do so. An adjudication under\nPart 190 to determine whether a violation occurred therefore is not conducted for warning items. In the Matter of\nEnterprise Products Mid-America Pipeline Company, CPF No. 4-2017-5019, 2018 WL 7350936, at *7 (Oct. 15,\n2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2019-1001\nPage 7\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nApril 10, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220191001_Closure Letter_09022021_(16-153225S)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: al.monaco@enbridge.com\nSeptember 2, 2021\nMr. Al Monaco\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nEnbridge, Inc.\n200, Fifth Avenue Place\n425 – 1st Street S.W.\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3L8\nRe: CPF No. 2-2019-1001\nDear Mr. Monaco:\nOn April 8, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto your subsidiary, Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (STT) a Final Order in the above-referenced\ncase. The Final Order included a Compliance Order (CO) which required STT to undertake\ncertain actions to ensure compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations. The required\nactions were directly related to the potential threat of cracks at girth welds throughout significant\nportions of the STT system. The Final Order also assessed a civil penalty of $19,000.\nSTT provided all required items, including multiple quarterly status reports, within the\ntimeframes specified in the CO. The third and final quarterly status report was received by\nPHMSA on December 7, 2020. The report indicated that all portions of the in-line inspection\n(ILI) assessment intended to capture the cracking threat were completed on or before June 25,\n2020, and STT paid the civil penalty by September 1, 2020.\nIt should be noted that following STT’s identification of an ILI-based approach to the cracking\nthreat, PHMSA expressed concern with STT’s reliance on solely ILI tools to find/identify cracks\nin girth welds. STT confirmed in the above-referenced final quarterly status report that an\nEnhanced Survey Analysis (ESA) was completed on the tool run for the referenced assessment to\n“…provide a thorough inspection of all Girth Welds that might be in question on the STT\nPipeline.”\nBased upon review of documentation of actions taken, PHMSA has determined that STT has\ncomplied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order. This case is now closed, and no further\naction is necessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.\n\n\n\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2019-1001)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Southern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Mr. Bill Yardley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC,\nbill.yardley@enbridge.com\nMr. Nathan Atanu, Manager, Operational Compliance,\nEnbridge, Nathan.Atanu@enbridge.com\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":36486}