{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320141006W","title":"PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE CO — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-09-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.225(a), 192.605(a), 192.905(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320141006w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320141006w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320141006w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320141006W","body":"Warning Letter involving PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(a),  192.605(a),  192.905(b)(1). The case was opened on 2014-09-26 and is reported as closed as of 2014-09-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320141006W_Warning Letter_09262014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320141006W/320141006W_Warning%20Letter_09262014.pdf\n\n320141006W_Warning Letter_09262014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320141006W/320141006W_Warning%20Letter_09262014_text.pdf\n\n320141006W_Warning Letter_09262014_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 26, 2014\nMr. Ryan Coffey\nExecutive VP Operations\nEnergy Transfer Partners\n800 E. Sonterra Boulevard, #400\nSan Antonio, Texas 78258\nCPF 3-2014-1006W\nDear Mr. Coffey:\nOn September 16-20, and September 30 – October 2, 2013, representatives of the Michigan\nPublic Service Commission acting as an interstate agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode inspected your records and facilities in Howell, Michigan.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected\nand the probable violation(s) 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 (incorporated by reference, see\n§192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code \"Welding and\nBrazing Qualifications\" (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) to produce welds\nmeeting the requirements of this subpart. The quality of the test welds used to\nqualify welding procedures shall be determined by destructive testing in\naccordance with the applicable welding standard(s).\nPanhandle did not properly qualify welding procedure specification (WPS) BSC-225\nunder API 1104 Section 5. Inspection of the procedure qualification records (PQR)\nBSC-223 and BSC-224, used to qualify WPS BSC-225, found that the tensile strength\n\n\n\nof the coupons pulled did not meet the minimum tensile strength list in API 5L\nSpecification Table 7. This welding procedure was utilized during the construction of\nPanhandle’s Ontario Line 100 construction project in 2012.\nPQR BSC-223 is a butt-weld procedure for X-65 pipe. PQR BSC-224 is a butt-weld\nprocedure for X-70 pipe. The straps pulled for PQR BSC-223 found that the tensile\nspecimens broke at 72,538 psi, 74,424 psi, 73,523 psi, and 75,947 psi. Table 7 of API\n5L indicates that the minimum tensile strength is 77,600 psi for X-65 pipe. The straps\npulled for BSC-224 found that the tensile specimens broke at 85,000 psi, 73,818 psi,\n79,960 psi, and 73,934 psi. Table 7 of API 5L indicated that the minimum tensile\nstrength is 82,700 psi for X-70 pipe.\nFurther, API 1104, Section 5.6.2.3 indicates that “If the specimen breaks below the\nspecified minimum tensile strength of the pipe material, the weld shall be set aside and\na new test weld shall be made.” No new test weld was done at the time of this\nprocedure qualification. A new test weld made later which proved satisfactory when\ntested. Panhandle is not currently using WPS BSC-225.\n2. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual\nof written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and\nfor emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nand\n§192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of\nthis subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation\nand maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency\nresponse or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know\nof locations that meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could\ninclude officials on a local emergency planning commission or relevant Native\nAmerican tribal officials.\nPanhandle did not follow their procedures for documenting potential identified sites to\nverify and confirm if those sites did not meet the requirements of becoming a high\nconsequence area. During the records review of the integrity management program,\nseveral business locations were noted as having an occupancy of one. When Panhandle\nwas asked for the documentation that verified the occupancy count, Panhandle was\nunable to produce the documentation.\n2\n\n\n\nPanhandle’s procedure B.13 – Surveillance for Class Location and HCA Determination\nspecifically addresses this in section 7.3, which requires personnel to record any new or\npreviously un-recorded buildings and/or well-defined outside areas using the applicable\nform(s) for Encroachment, Facility Crossing & Class Location/HCA report. Section 8.0\nidentifies the form as the 7T-69 Structure Location Form. Panhandle could not produce\nany 7T-69 forms for the businesses reviewed by our inspectors during the inspection.\nIn a subsequent follow-up request, PHMSA requested that Panhandle provide a list of\nstructures with less than twenty people for the state of Michigan. In addition to the list,\nPHMSA requested that Panhandle provide the 7T-69 form for each identified structure.\nPanhandle was able to provide the list of structures, but admitted that a 7T-69 form was\nnot completed for all of the structures in the list. Furthermore, Panhandle indicated that\nthey had discovered that some of the structures should have had a higher occupancy and\nthat they were in the process of verifying the actual occupancy.\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\nand supporting 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\ncorrect the item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Energy Transfer\nPartners being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please\nrefer to CPF 3-2014-1006W. 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.\n552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":7777}