{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32025028NOA","title":"TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2025-07-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.607(c), 192.607(e)(1), 192.609, 192.613(a), 192.632, 192.632(a), 192.712(d)(3), 192.712(e)(2)(iii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025028noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025028noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025028noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32025028NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.607(c),  192.607(e)(1),  192.609,  192.613(a),  192.632,  192.632(a),  192.712(d)(3),  192.712(e)(2)(iii). The case was opened on 2025-07-01 and is reported as closed as of 2025-11-06. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32025028NOA_Closure Letter_11062025_(24-299195).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025028NOA/32025028NOA_Closure%20Letter_11062025_(24-299195).pdf\n\n32025028NOA_Closure Letter_11062025_(24-299195)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025028NOA/32025028NOA_Closure%20Letter_11062025_(24-299195)_text.pdf\n\n32025028NOA_Notice of Amendment_07012025_(24-299195).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025028NOA/32025028NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_07012025_(24-299195).pdf\n\n32025028NOA_Notice of Amendment_07012025_(24-299195)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025028NOA/32025028NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_07012025_(24-299195)_text.pdf\n\n32025028NOA_Operator Response to Notice_07312025_(24-299195).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025028NOA/32025028NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07312025_(24-299195).pdf\n\n32025028NOA_Closure Letter_11062025_(24-299195)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\n901 Locust Street, Suite 480\nKansas City, MO 64106\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: cynthia.hansen@enbridge.com;\npeter.seydewitz@enbridge.com; salima.abdulla@enbridge.com;\nmichael.mcgrath@enbridge.com\nNovember 6, 2025\nMs. Cynthia Hansen\nPresident/Chief Operating Officer\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP\n915 North Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77079\nRE: CPF 3-2025-028-NOA\nDear Ms. Hansen:\nDuring the weeks of May 13, June 3, and June 24, 2024, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code (U.S.C.), conducted an inspection of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP’s (TET)\nprocedures for the new gas integrity rule in Houston, Texas. On July 1, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR\n§ 190.206, PHMSA issued a Notice of Amendment which proposed amendment of TET’s\nprocedures.\nTET submitted its amended procedures on July 31 and October 31, 2025. PHMSA has reviewed\nthe amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in the Notice of Amendment\nfor items one through six have been corrected. With regards to item seven, upon further discussions\nwith your personnel and clarifications, it has been determined that the procedure is adequate, and\nno amendment is required.\nThis letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary, and this case is now closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Mr. Peter Seydewitz, Director, Operational Excellence\nMs. Salima Abdulla, Manager, Operational Compliance\nMr. Michael McGrath, Strategic Advisor, Operational Compliance\n\n32025028NOA_Notice of Amendment_07012025_(24-299195)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: cynthia.hansen@enbridge.com;\npeter.seydewitz@enbridge.com; salima.abdulla@enbridge.com;\nmichael.mcgrath@enbridge.com\nJuly 1, 2025\nMs. Cynthia Hansen\nPresident / Chief Operating Officer\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP\n915 North Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77079\nCPF 3-2025-028-NOA\nDear Ms. Hansen:\nFor the weeks of May 13, June 3, and June 24, 2024, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), conducted an inspection of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP’s procedures for the new gas\nintegrity rule1 in Houston, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Texas\nEastern Transmission LP’s (TET) plans or procedures. The items inspected and the alleged\ninadequacies and proposed revisions are described below:\n1. § 192.607 Verification of Pipeline Material Properties and Attributes: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Verification of material properties and attributes. If an operator does not have\ntraceable, verifiable, and complete records required by paragraph (b) of this section,\n1 Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0023; Amdt. Nos. 191–26; 192–125 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission\nPipelines: MAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other Related Amendments\n\n\n\nthe operator must develop and implement procedures for conducting nondestructive\nor destructive tests, examinations, and assessments in order to verify the material\nproperties of aboveground line pipe and components, and of buried line pipe and\ncomponents when excavations occur at the following opportunities: Anomaly direct\nexaminations, in situ evaluations, repairs, remediations, maintenance, and\nexcavations that are associated with replacements or relocations of pipeline segments\nthat are removed from service.\nTET’s procedure PI-01.001 – Material Verification Procedure did not consider an opportunistic\ndig as an excavation that did not excavate the full circumference of the pipe. Specifically, Section\n4.1 of the procedure only considers an opportunistic dig to occur where the full circumferential\nextents of the segment will be exposed. Even if the pipe is not fully excavated, there are\nopportunities to get missing attributes that do not require the entire pipe circumference to be\nexposed. The Final Rule specifically addresses this as a response to industry comments regarding\nthe number of test points for non-destructive testing. PHMSA reduced the number of test points\nfrom four quadrants to two quadrants to allow for material verification on the top half of the pipe\nand avoid the need to access the bottom half of the pipe when a repair or maintenance activity\nwould not require it.2 Therefore, TET did not have adequate procedures for § 192.607(c) as\nrequired by § 192.605(a).\n2. § 192.607 Verification of Pipeline Material Properties and Attributes: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Sampling multiple segments of pipe. To verify material properties and attributes\nfor a population of multiple, comparable segments of pipe without traceable,\nverifiable, and complete records, an operator may use a sampling program in\naccordance with the following requirements:\n(1) The operator must define separate populations of similar segments of pipe for each\ncombination of the following material properties and attributes: Nominal wall\nthicknesses, grade, manufacturing process, pipe manufacturing dates, and\nconstruction dates. If the dates between the manufacture or construction of the\npipeline segments exceeds 2 years, those segments cannot be considered as the same\nvintage for the purpose of defining a population under this section. The total\npopulation mileage is the cumulative mileage of pipeline segments in the population.\nThe pipeline segments need not be continuous.\nTET’s procedure PI-01.500 – Populations of Similar Segments Guide indicated in Appendix A\nthat the commissioning pressure test (construction date) could be used as a proxy for the\nmanufacturing date which § 192.607(e)(1) does not allow. Construction dates cannot be used as a\nproxy for manufacturing date because material attributes are directly tied to the manufacturing\ndate. Therefore, TET did not have adequate procedures for § 192.607(e)(1) in accordance with\n§ 192.605(a).\n2 Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0023; Amdt. Nos. 191–26; 192–125; Pages 52194-52195; Section 3: PHMSA\nResponse\n\n\n\n3. § 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.\n(b) The design, construction, and testing procedures followed in the original\nconstruction, and a comparison of these procedures with those required for the\npresent class location by the applicable provisions of this part.\n(c) The physical condition of the segment to the extent it can be ascertained from\navailable records;\n(d) The operating and maintenance history of the segment;\n(e) The maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding operating hoop\nstress, taking pressure gradient into account, for the segment of pipeline involved;\nand,\n(f) The actual area affected by the population density increase, and physical barriers\nor other factors which may limit further expansion of the more densely populated\narea.\nTET’s procedure OC-52.202 - Class Determination Procedure, did not contain enough specificity\nin their class analysis review to meet the requirements in § 192.609(a) – (f). Section 8.3.2.4 of the\nclass analysis review section referenced sections § 192.609(a), (b), (e), and (f), but did not provide\nany guidance on how to fulfill the requirements and how that review would be documented. TET\npersonnel indicated that § 192.609(c) and (d) were completed by their Encroachment group, but\nthe procedures made no mention of that work group and what they were expected to do and\ndocument. Additionally, the procedure did not specify that the class analysis must be done when\nthe pipeline is operating above 40% SMYS or when the pipeline’s MAOP is not commensurate\nwith the current class location. The procedure appeared to be focused on Class 3 and 4 areas but\ndid not direct personnel to conduct the study if these conditions occur in a Class 1 or 2 area.\nTherefore, TET did not have adequate procedure for § 192.609(a)–(f) as required by § 192.605(a).\n4. § 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to\ndetermine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location, failures,\nleakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements,\nand other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.\nTET’s Procedure 50.201 – Field Surveillance and Monitoring Process did not provide enough\nguidance with regards to monitoring their facilities in order to take appropriate action concerning\nchanges in class locations. Specifically, Table 3 – Surveillance and Monitoring Descriptions\n\n\n\ndescribed categories for damage prevention and then provided guidance on how to address that\ncategory for continuing surveillance. In the category Land Use and Landownership Monitoring,\none of the bulleted guidance items stated that personnel “periodically review and assess the land\nuse adjacent to the GTM asset”. The procedure did not define periodically (how often they were\nto conduct the review), nor did it define how personnel were going to assess the facilities adjacent\nto GTM assets, such as identified Class 3 and High Consequence Area sites. During the records\nreview, two examples were noted where buildings next to GTM assets were not correctly identified\nas occupied sites with one resulting in a missed Class 3 site. Therefore, TET did not have adequate\nprocedures for § 192.613 as required by § 192.605(a).\n5. § 192.632 Engineering Critical Assessment for Maximum Allowable Operating\nPressure Reconfirmation: Onshore steel transmission pipelines.\nWhen an operator conducts an MAOP reconfirmation in accordance with\n§ 192.624(c)(3) \"Method 3\" using an ECA to establish the material strength and\nMAOP of the pipeline segment, the ECA must comply with the requirements of this\nsection. The ECA must assess: Threats; loadings and operational circumstances\nrelevant to those threats, including along the pipeline right-of way; outcomes of the\nthreat assessment; relevant mechanical and fracture properties; in-service\ndegradation or failure processes; and initial and final defect size relevance. The ECA\nmust quantify the interacting effects of threats on any defect in the pipeline.\n(a) ECA Analysis.\nThe material properties required to perform an ECA analysis in accordance with this\nparagraph are as follows: Diameter, wall thickness, seam type, grade (minimum yield\nstrength and ultimate tensile strength), and Charpy v-notch toughness values based\nupon the lowest operational temperatures, if applicable. If any material properties\nrequired to perform an ECA for any pipeline segment in accordance with this\nparagraph are not documented in traceable, verifiable and complete records, an\noperator must use conservative assumptions and include the pipeline segment in its\nprogram to verify the undocumented information in accordance with § 192.607. The\nECA must integrate, analyze, and account for the material properties, the results of\nall tests, direct examinations, destructive tests, and assessments performed in\naccordance with this section, along with other pertinent information related to\npipeline integrity, including close interval surveys, coating surveys, interference\nsurveys required by subpart I of this part, cause analyses of prior incidents, prior\npressure test leaks and failures, other leaks, pipe inspections, and prior integrity\nassessments, including those required by §§ 192.617, 192.710, and subpart O of this\npart.\nTET’s procedure PI-01.100 – Field Material Verification Procedure did not require obtaining the\nCharpy V-notch toughness values at the lowest operating temperature when being utilized for an\nEngineering Critical Assessment. Appendix A – Destructive Testing Test Plan in section 3c. only\nindicated that the tests would be performed at 23 degrees F, 50 degrees F, and 75 degrees F. Thus,\n\n\n\nTET ‘s procedures for obtaining Charpy V-notch values do not meet the requirements of\n§ 192.632(a)(1) as required by § 192.605(a).\n6. § 192.712 Analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level.\n(a) . . . .\n(d) Cracks and crack-like defects\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Cracks that survive pressure testing. For cases in which the operator does not\nhave in-line inspection crack anomaly data and is analyzing potential crack defects\nthat could have survived a pressure test, the operator must calculate the largest\npotential crack defect sizes using the methods in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. . . .\nTET did not have a procedure that would determine the largest potential crack defect to survive a\npressure test in accordance with § 192.712(d)(3). This procedure is required to determine the next\nreassessment interval in accordance with § 192.939 if hydrotesting were to be used as well as\nconducting remedial actions as required in § 192.933 in the Integrity Management program.\nTherefore, TET did not have procedures for § 192.712(d)(3) as required by § 192.605(a).\n7. § 192.712 Analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Data. In performing the analyses of predicted or assumed anomalies or defects in\naccordance with this section, an operator must use data as follows.\n(1) . . . .\n(2) The analyses performed in accordance with this section must utilize pipe and\nmaterial properties that are documented in traceable, verifiable, and complete\nrecords. If documented data required for any analysis is not available, an operator\nmust obtain the undocumented data through § 192.607.\nUntil documented material properties are available, the operator shall use\nconservative assumptions as follows:\ni. . . . .\niii. Pipe dimensions and other data. Until pipe wall thickness, diameter, or other\ndata are determined and documented in accordance with § 192.607, the operator\nmust use values upon which the current MAOP is based.\nTET’s procedure AI-72.800 – Asset Integrity Risk Algorithm Document Guide did not require the\nuse of the values upon which the current MAOP was based upon as inputs for the risk analysis\nused to determine the predicted failure pressure. The procedure did not require the use of the\nmaterial properties for which the MAOP was based upon if traceable, verifiable, and complete\nrecords are unknown. Appendix C – Default Uncertainty Distributions of the document contains\nthe default uncertainty values used for the analysis. Table C.4 – Material Tensile Properties lists\nthe Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS), the Mean, and the Standard Deviation for the\nyield strength and tensile strength for each grade of pipe. In the table, PHMSA noted that the mean\nvalues taken with the standard deviation would exceed the SMYS value utilized to establish the\n\n\n\nMAOP. For example, the table indicates for Grade 24000 psi pipe, there is a mean of 26400 psi\nand a standard deviation as 924 psi. The lowest value that could be used is 25476 psi (26400 –\n924 = 25476), which is greater than 24000 psi SMYS. During the inspection, TET personnel\nindicated that the mean values, which all exceed the SMYS, are used as inputs in the analysis. As\na result, there appears to be a conflict with PI-04.505 Section 7.3.2.1 which states that the values\nwhich the current MAOP is based upon must be used when calculating predicted failure pressures.\nTherefore, TET’s procedure in AI-72.800 did not meet the requirements of § 192.712(e)(2)(iii) as\nrequired by § 192.605(a).\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 CFR § 190.206. Enclosed as part\nof this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement\nProceedings.\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\n5 U.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 under\n5 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 Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 CFR § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 90 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Texas Eastern Transmission, LP maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to the Director, Central Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety. In\ncorrespondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2025-028-NOA and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\n\n\n\nDavid Barrett\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Mr. Peter Seydewitz, Director - Operational Excellence\nMs. Salima Abdulla, Manager – Operational Compliance\nMr. Michael McGrath, Strategic Advisor, Operational Compliance\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings","truncated":false,"body_characters":20199}