{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32023029NOA","title":"TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-12-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.907(b), 192.915(b)(2), 192.919(a), 192.935(b)(1)(iv), 192.939(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32023029noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32023029noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32023029noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32023029NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.907(b),  192.915(b)(2),  192.919(a),  192.935(b)(1)(iv),  192.939(a). The case was opened on 2023-12-11 and is reported as closed as of 2024-03-01. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32023029NOA_Closure Letter_03012024_(22-240904).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023029NOA/32023029NOA_Closure%20Letter_03012024_(22-240904).pdf\n\n32023029NOA_Closure Letter_03012024_(22-240904)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023029NOA/32023029NOA_Closure%20Letter_03012024_(22-240904)_text.pdf\n\n32023029NOA_Notice of Amendment_12112023_(22-240904).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023029NOA/32023029NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_12112023_(22-240904).pdf\n\n32023029NOA_Notice of Amendment_12112023_(22-240904)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023029NOA/32023029NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_12112023_(22-240904)_text.pdf\n\n32023029NOA_Operator Response to Notice_02122024_(22-240904).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023029NOA/32023029NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02122024_(22-240904).pdf\n\n32023029NOA_Closure Letter_03012024_(22-240904)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO : Cynthia.hansen@enbridge.com;\npeter.seydewitz@enbridge.com; leo.rosasjr@enbridge.com\nMarch 1, 2024\nCynthia Hansen\nEVP & President Gas Transmission and Midstream - Enbridge Inc.\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP\n915 N Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100\nHouston, Texas 77079\nRe: CPF 3-2023-029-NOA\nDear Ms. Hansen:\nFrom May 3, 2022 through May 5, 2022, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), inspected Texas Eastern Transmission, LP’s (TETLP) plan and procedures for gas\ntransmission integrity management in Houston, Texas. As a result of the inspection, TETLP was\nissued a Notice of Amendment on December 11, 2023, which proposed amendment of your\nprocedures.\nTETLP submitted its amended procedures on February 12, 2024. My staff has reviewed the\namended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment\nhave been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Peter Seydewitz, Director, Operational Excellence, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP,\n(peter.seydewitz@enbridge.com)\nLeo Rosas, Jr., Supervisor, Operational Compliance, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP,\n(leo.rosasjr@enbridge.com)\n\n32023029NOA_Notice of Amendment_12112023_(22-240904)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO : Cynthia.hansen@enbridge.com;\npeter.seydewitz@enbridge.com; leo.rosasjr@enbridge.com\nDecember 11, 2023\nCynthia Hansen\nEVP & President Gas Transmission and Midstream - Enbridge Inc.\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP\n915 N Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100\nHouston, Texas 77079\nCPF 3-2023-029-NOA\nDear Ms. Hansen:\nFrom May 3, 2022 through May 5, 2022, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), inspected Texas Eastern Transmission, LP’s (TETLP) plan and procedures for gas\ntransmission integrity management in Houston, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nTETPL’s plans or procedures. The items inspected and the inadequacies are described below:\n1. § 192.907 What must an operator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Implementation Standards. In carrying out this subpart, an operator must\nfollow the requirements of this subpart and of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated\nby reference, see § 192.7) and its appendices, where specified. An operator may\nfollow an equivalent standard or practice only when the operator demonstrates the\nalternative standard or practice provides an equivalent level of safety to the public\nand property. In the event of a conflict between this subpart and ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, the requirements in this subpart control.\nThe TETLP Integrity Management Plan was inadequate as it did not describe or define\nhow “may”, “should”, and similar statements are implemented and followed within the\nIntegrity Management Plan for documents incorporated by reference. TETLP’s “P-IMP\n\n\n\n2. 3. 4. Appendix B” of the Integrity Management Plan did not describe implementation of\n“should” statements in materials incorporated by reference. As part of the integrity\nmanagement (IM) program, referenced documents are included in decision-making, and a\ndescription of how decisions are made is required by § 192.907(a).\n§ 192.915 What knowledge and training must personnel have to carry out an\nintegrity management program?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Persons who carry out assessments and evaluate assessment results. The\nintegrity management program must provide criteria for the qualification of any\nperson—\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Who reviews and analyzes the results from an integrity assessment and\nevaluation;\nThe TETLP Integrity Management Plan was inadequate as it did not provide the criteria\nfor the qualification of persons, including supervisors, that review and evaluate the results\nof integrity assessments and evaluations for the following: external corrosion direct\nassessments (ECDA), internal corrosion direct assessments (ICDA), inline inspection,\nother technology, pressure testing and stress corrosion direct assessment (SCCDA). The\nIM plan must include specific criteria for each of the types of assessments and\nevaluations that are reviewed and analyzed within the integrity management program.\n§ 192.907(a) requires the written IM plan describe how relevant decisions are made and\nby whom.\n§ 192.919 What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\nAn operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\n(a) Identification of the potential threats to each covered pipeline segment and the\ninformation supporting the threat identification. (See § 192.917.);\nThe TETLP Integrity Management Program procedures were inadequate as they did not\ndescribe the information required to support the threat identification for the baseline\nassessment plan. The procedures did not describe how the baseline assessment plan is\npopulated with all of the required information. The procedure needs to describe the\nrecords that are required for supporting the threat identification. A written baseline\nassessment plan is a required element of integrity management plans. See § 192.911(b).\n§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an operator\ntake?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Third party damage and outside force damage-\n(1) Third party damage. An operator must enhance its damage prevention program,\nas required under § 192.614 of this part, with respect to a covered segment to\nprevent and minimize the consequences of a release due to third party damage.\nEnhanced measures to an existing damage prevention program include, at a\nminimum-\n\n\n\n5. (i) . . . .\n(iv) Monitoring of excavations conducted on covered pipeline segments by pipeline\npersonnel. If an operator finds physical evidence of encroachment involving\nexcavation that the operator did not monitor near a covered segment, an operator\nmust either excavate the area near the encroachment or conduct an above ground\nsurvey using methods defined in NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 192.7). An operator must excavate, and remediate, in accordance with\nANSI/ASME B31.8S and § 192.933 any indication of coating holidays or\ndiscontinuity warranting direct examination.\nThe TETLP procedure DP-50.300 was inadequate because it did not require investigation\nwhen TETLP finds physical evidence of excavations the operator did not monitor. The\ninvestigation must use above ground survey methods defined in NACE SP0502 with\nexcavation and remediation of any indication of coating holidays or discontinuity\nwarranting direct examination in accordance with ASME B31.8S and § 192.933.\nTETLP’s procedure(s) must clearly indicate when and how excavations and/or above\nground surveys will be used when physical evidence of an unmonitored third party\nexcavation is discovered. Provisions for adding preventive and mitigative measures to\nprotect high consequence areas is a required element of integrity management plans. See\n§ 192.911(h).\n§ 192.939 What are the required reassessment intervals?\nAn operator must comply with the following requirements in establishing the\nreassessment interval for the operator's covered pipeline segments.\n(a) Pipelines operating at or above 30% SMYS. An operator must establish a\nreassessment interval for each covered segment operating at or above 30% SMYS in\naccordance with the requirements of this section. The maximum reassessment\ninterval by an allowable reassessment method is 7 calendar years. Operators may\nrequest a 6-month extension of the 7-calendar- year reassessment interval if the\noperator submits written notice to OPS, in accordance with §192.18, with sufficient\njustification of the need for the extension. If an operator establishes a reassessment\ninterval that is greater than 7 calendar years, the operator must, within the 7-\ncalendar-year period, conduct a confirmatory direct assessment on the covered\nsegment, and then conduct the follow-up reassessment at the interval the operator\nhas established. A reassessment carried out using confirmatory direct assessment\nmust be done in accordance with §192.931. The table that follows this section sets\nforth the maximum allowed reassessment intervals.\nThe TETLP Integrity Program procedures were inadequate as they did not specify how\nthe determination of the reassessment interval was finalized and what records were to be\nmaintained supporting the reassessment interval determination. A process of continual\nevaluation and assessment is a required element of integrity management plans. See\n§ 192.911(f).\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nEnforcement Proceedings.\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of\nthe document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your\nplans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend\nyour plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not\ncontesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within\n30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good\ncause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended\nprocedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested that Texas Eastern Transmission, LP maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures) and submit the total to Gregory Ochs, Director, OPS Central Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter,\nplease refer to CPF 3-2023-029-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy\nin electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\ncc: Peter Seydewitz, Director, Operational Excellence, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP,\n(peter.seydewitz@enbridge.com)\nLeo Rosas, Jr., Supervisor, Operational Compliance, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP,\n(leo.rosasjr@enbridge.com)","truncated":false,"body_characters":12975}