{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420121009","title":"TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-05-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.475(a), 192.475(b), 192.479(a), 192.605(a), 192.705(a), 192.707(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420121009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.475(a),  192.475(b),  192.479(a),  192.605(a),  192.705(a),  192.707(a). The case was opened on 2012-05-29 and is reported as closed as of 2013-08-23. Proposed civil penalty: $134,500. Assessed civil penalty: $134,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420121009_Closure Letter_08232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_Closure%20Letter_08232013.pdf\n\n420121009_Closure Letter_08232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_Closure%20Letter_08232013_text.pdf\n\n420121009_Final Order_12212012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_Final%20Order_12212012.pdf\n\n420121009_Final Order_12212012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_Final%20Order_12212012_text.pdf\n\n420121009_NOPV PCP PCO_05292012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05292012.pdf\n\n420121009_NOPV PCP PCO_05292012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05292012_text.pdf\n\n420121009_Operator Response to Notice_06282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121009/420121009_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06282012.pdf\n\n420121009_Closure Letter_08232013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 23, 2013\nMr. Andrew Drake, P.E.\nVice President, Asset Integrity\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC\n5400 Westheimer Ct.\nHouston, TX 77056\nCPF 4-2012-1009\nDear Mr. Drake:\nOn December 21, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Spectra Energy Corporation a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Payment of the Civil Penalty was\nreceived on June 28, 2012. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420121009_NOPV PCP PCO_05292012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 29, 2012\nMr. Theopolis Holeman\nGroup V.P. U.S. Operations\nTexas Eastern Transmission L.P.\n5400 Westheimer Ct.\nHouston, TX 77056\nCPF 4-2012-1009\nDear Mr. Holeman:\nFrom February 7 to December 15, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nTexas Eastern Transmission L.P., Spectra Energy (TET) procedures, records, and pipeline\nfacilities in the states of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and the Gulf of Mexico.\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 and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General\n(a) Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the corrosive effect of\nthe gas on the pipeline has been investigated and steps have been taken to minimize\ninternal corrosion.\nAt the Iowa Facility in the Lake Charles unit area, the PHMSA inspector noted that dead-ends\nhad not been identified and monitored for several years. TET failed to take steps to minimize\n\n\n\ninternal corrosion. Dead end piping that cannot be swept with gas pressure or cleaned by\npigging need to be monitored in order to minimize any effects of internal corrosion. On August\n29, 2000, PHMSA issued Advisory Bulletin ADB-00-02. The Advisory states that Gas\ntransmission owners and operators should thoroughly review their internal corrosion\nmanagement programs and operations. Additionally, special attention should be given to\nspecific conditions, including flow characteristics, pipeline location (especially drips, dead legs,\nand sags, which are on-line segments that are not cleaned by pigging or other methods).\n2. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the internal\nsurface must be inspected for evidence for corrosion. If internal corrosion is found\n(1)The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of internal\ncorrosion;\n(2)Replacement must be made to the extent required by the applicable paragraphs\nof §§192.485, 192.487, or 192.489; and;\n(3)Steps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nDuring the review records at the Lake Charles area office, PHMSA inspectors found that there\nwere two instances which indicate that the internal surface of the pipe was not inspected for\nevidence of corrosion. The Pipe & Coating Inspection Report #’s: 4-LC-033-08-12 and 4-LC-\n033-08-11 both dated 7/30/2008; indicate that whereas the pipe was repaired by welding in two\nfull circumference sections of pipe, the reports indicate that the pipes internal surface was not\ninspected for evidence of corrosion.\nRecords reviewed during the field inspection demonstrate that TET violated § 192.475 by failing\nto inspect the internal surface for evidence of corrosion.\n3. §192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control; General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\nDuring the field inspection of the Lake Charles area, PHMSA inspectors observed that Texas\nEastern (Spectra) failed to clean and coat portions of their pipeline exposed to atmospheric\ncorrosion at two (2) locations. PHMSA inspectors observed disbonded coating, atmospheric\ncorrosion, and severe pitting in couple of locations. The locations were at Mainline Block Valve\nMP 49.64 and at Vermillion 265 offshore platform.\n4. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\n2\n\n\n\nemergency 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 once 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.\n§192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-\nair interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports,\nin splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.\nAt the Atlanta Compressor Station field inspection, PHMSA inspectors observed that TET has\nfailed give particular attention to pipe station pipe coating under thermal insulation. The TET\nprocedure 2-5000, Atmospheric Pipe Inspection has a note specifying where the ports should be\nlocated for monitoring. The insulated section of piping at the Atlanta compressor station has\nonly one 2-inch capped area at the 12 o’clock position on the pipe with which to examine the\npipes coating. The PHMSA inspector observed that a more effective means of monitoring for\natmospheric corrosion must be implemented. TET has failed to meet the requirements of\n§192.481 by failing to inspect with particular attention under its thermally insulated pipe and\nTET failed to follow procedure 2-5000 which notes that inspection ports should be located at the\nlow points on the piping where water is more likely to accumulate in the annular space between\nthe outside of pipe and insulation.\n5. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency 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 once 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.\n§192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must\nbe inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\nTET did not partially operate each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency as required by §192.745 and by TET Standard Operating procedure 5-5010. During\n3\n\n\n\nthe valve maintenance records inspection of the TET facilities in the states of Texas, Louisiana\nand Arkansas, TET provided records documenting the valve inspections. The records showed the\ninspections as having occurred for the years between 2008 and 2011; however they failed to\nperform the partial operation of more than 32, 2-inch valves; more than 6, 3-inch valves; more\nthan 7, 4-inch valves; more than 4, 6-inch valves; more than 5, 8-inch valves; more than 7, 10-\ninch valves; more than 2, 14-inch valves; more than 2, 16-inch valves; more than 3, 24-inch\nvalves; and more than 7, 30-inch valves for at least one calendar year interval between 2008 and\n2011.\nSpectra Energy Standard Operating Procedures, Volume 5 – Emergency Response and Common\nProcedures, Procedure 5-5010 Valve Inspection and Maintenance states on page 1 of 10,\n“Perform inspection and maintenance of all pipeline, meter station and compressor station valves\nin gas service 2” and Larger in accordance with the valve manufacturers’ guidelines and the\nrequirements of this procedure, once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months.” On page 6 of\n10 it states, “If it is not possible to stroke a valve 100% due to gas flow conditions, operate the\nvalve partially to validate the inspection.” On page 8 of 10 it states, “For valves within or\nadjacent to compressor stations, or other facilities where hazardous conditions would result or\nwhere the operation of the station would be in jeopardy from a fully open or completely closed\nvalve operation, operate partially.” TET does not maintain a list valves that might be required\nduring any emergency, but instead they inspect and partially operate all valves as stated in their\nprocedure.\nTET failed to follow its procedure as written in its Standard Operating Procedures manual\nthereby failing to meet the requirements of §192.605(a) and TET failed to demonstrate that\nvalves that might be required during any emergency were partially operated as required by\n§192.745(a). While the TET completed the maintenance portion of the inspections within the\nmaximum 15 month period, they failed to perform the partial operation of several valves\nbetween the calendar years of 2008 and 2011.\n6. §192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface conditions on and\nadjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction\nactivity, and other factors affecting safety and operation.\nAt the Longview area field inspection, the PHMSA inspector noted several occasions of Right-\nof-Way overgrowth and of debris on the ROW. The areas were on Line 11 at MP 229; 306.57\nand Line 13 at MP 23; 24.24; and MP 44. The overgrowth and debris noted in these areas were\nsuch that it would hamper the patrolling of these areas for indications of leaks, construction\nactivity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. TET has failed to meet the\nrequirements of §192.705(a) by failing to maintain the Right-of-Way in a condition that would\nnot impede the performance of their patrolling.\n7. §192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n4\n\n\n\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a line\nmarker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each buried main\nand transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line or main to\nreduce the possibility of damage or interference.\nDuring the Arkansas area field inspection, the PHMSA inspector noted where line markers were\nnot placed and maintained as close as practical over each buried main and transmission. In\nArkansas the areas were at MP 85.12, downstream from the valve in the open field area and at\nMP 339.09, upstream and downstream from mainline valve 1-496. Additionally, while\ninspecting the Portland south unit in Texas, the PHMSA inspector noted a similar issue. There\nwere no line markers on the rear fence at the Measuring Station 73258/59, at MP 23.25, where\nthe line enters the fenced area.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $134,500.00 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $29,600.00\n4 $28,700.00\n5 $76,200.00\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items 1, 3, 6, and 7, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action\nor penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items.\nBe advised that failure to do so may result in TET being subject to additional enforcement\naction.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 4 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Texas Eastern\nTransmission L.P., Spectra Energy. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is\nenclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\n5\n\n\n\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. 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 information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt 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 a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2012-1009 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n6\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 Texas Eastern Transmission L.P., Spectra Energy\n(TET) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirement to ensure the\ncompliance of TET with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regards to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to failure to give particular\nattention to pipe coating under thermal insulation, TET must review procedure 2-5000\nAtmospheric Pipe Inspection to ensure that the location of inspection ports are in the\nproper location to monitor the coating under thermal insulation. TET must survey all\napplicable insulated segments of its pipeline facilities throughout its pipeline system\nand ensure that they are protected from atmospheric corrosion under the thermal\ninsulation. Based on this review and survey, the respondent must develop a plan,\nprocess and follow their procedure to ensure that the inspection, testing, and\nmonitoring of pipe coating under thermal insulation is performed in a manner\nconsistent with the requirements of §195.481(b). TET must provide this office its\nplans, procedures and records that demonstrate that a process has been implemented\nand demonstrate compliance with 49 CFR §195.481(b).\n2. Aforementioned to be accomplished within 30 days following receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that TET maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes\nto pipeline infrastructure.\n7\n\n420121009_Final Order_12212012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 21, 2012\nMr. Gregory L. Ebel\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSpectra Energy Corporation\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-1009\nDear Mr. Ebel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $134,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This letter\nacknowledges receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated\nJune 28, 2012. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by\nthe Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. J. Andrew Drake, P.E., Vice President, Asset Integrity, Texas Eastern Transmission,\nLP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-1009\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February 7 to December 15, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline 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 Texas\nEastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern or Respondent), a subsidiary of Spectra Energy\nCorporation, in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and the Gulf of Mexico. These facilities are part of\nthe Texas Eastern Transmission pipeline, which transports natural gas through a 9,200-mile\npipeline system extending from Texas and the Gulf Coast to the northeastern United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 29, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nTexas Eastern had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $134,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required\nno further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible\nenforcement action.\nTexas Eastern responded to the Notice by letter dated June 28, 2012 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $134,500, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. The company also provided information concerning the\ncorrective actions it planned to take within 30 days of the issuance of this Final Order. Payment\nof the penalty serves to close these items with prejudice to the Respondent.\n1 http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operations/North-America-Transmission/Assets/Texas-Eastern-Transmission/ (last\naccessed on November 30, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Texas Eastern did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b), which states:\n§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the\ninternal surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion. If internal\ncorrosion is found—\n(1) The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of\ninternal corrosion;\n(2) Replacement must be made to the extent required by the applicable\nparagraphs of §§ 192.485, 192.487, or 192.489; and\n(3) Steps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by failing, in two instances,\nto inspect the internal surface of removed sections of pipe for evidence of corrosion.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that inspection reports indicated Respondent failed to inspect the\ninternal surface of certain pipe sections for evidence of corrosion, even though they had been\nrepaired by welding in two full circumference sections of pipe.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by failing, in two\ninstances, to inspect the internal surface of removed sections of pipe for evidence of corrosion.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nown written procedures implementing the substantive requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b).2\n2 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b) states: “During inspections the operator must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-\nair interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbanded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck\npenetrations, and in spans over water.”\n\n\n\n3\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Texas Eastern failed to follow its own Standard Operating\nProcedure (SOP) 2-5000, Atmospheric Pipe Inspection, which states that inspection ports should\nbe located at low points on the piping where water is more likely to accumulate in the annular\nspace between the outside of the pipe and the insulation.3 The Notice alleged that the insulated\nsection of piping at the Atlanta compressor station had only one two-inch capped area at the 12\no’clock position on the pipe with which to examine the pipe’s coating, in violation of the\ncompany’s own SOP 2-5000.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nown written procedure, SOP 2-5000, Atmospheric Pipe Inspection.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow its own written procedures implementing the substantive requirements of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a).4 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Texas Eastern failed to follow its\nown SOP 5-5010, Valve Inspection and Maintenance, which required annual valve inspections,\nbut at least at intervals not exceeding 15 months, for valves that might be required during an\nemergency. Under the company’s procedure, such inspections had to include the full or partial\noperation of each valve.5 The Notice alleged that between 2008 and 2011, multiple valves at\nTexas Eastern’s facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas had not been partially operated as\npart of the annual inspections.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but stated in its Response that the\nviolation resulted from the use of a single database used to document the maintenance of all\nvalves, both emergency and non-emergency. While SOP 5-5010 required partial operation only\nfor valves that might be required during an emergency, the Texas Eastern database failed to\nseparately identify non-emergency valves that did not require partial operation during\ninspections.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own procedure, SOP 5-5010, Valve Inspection\nand Maintenance.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n3 Violation Report at Exhibit D.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) states: “Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency\nmust be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear.”\n5 Violation Report at Exhibit E.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\n\n\n\n4\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; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $134,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,600 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b), for failing, in two instances, to inspect the internal surface of removed\npipe for evidence of corrosion. The removal of a section of pipe provides a valuable opportunity\nto visually inspect pipe for signs of internal corrosion. By failing to inspect removed pipe, an\noperator can easily miss visible signs of corrosion that could result in a pipeline failure. Texas\nEastern paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close this Item with\nprejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own procedure, SOP 2-5000, Atmospheric Pipe\nInspection. An operator that fails to follow its own procedures for atmospheric corrosion\ninspections increases the risk of preventable pipeline accidents. Texas Eastern paid the proposed\npenalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close this Item with prejudice. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $28,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $76,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own procedure, SOP 5-5010, Valve Inspection\nand Maintenance. Respondent indicated in its Response that since the time of the inspection it\nhad appropriately identified emergency valves within its database, and would revise SOP 5-5010\nto more accurately reflect the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a). Respondent, however,\nconceded that at the time of the inspection SOP 5-5010 required inspection and partial operation\nof all valves, both emergency and non-emergency, and that it had not complied with this\nprocedure. An operator that fails to follow its own procedures for valve inspections increases the\nrisk of preventable pipeline accidents. Texas Eastern paid the proposed penalty for the alleged\nviolation, which serves to close this Item with prejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $76,200 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $134,500.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 4 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(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\n\n\n\n5\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following\nactions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. 2. 3. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(a) (Item 4), Respondent must:\na. Review SOP 2-5000, Atmospheric Pipe Inspection, to ensure that the locations of\ninspection ports are appropriate for monitoring the coating under thermal insulation.\nb. Survey all applicable insulated segments of its pipeline facilities throughout its\npipeline system to ensure they are protected from atmospheric corrosion under\nthermal insulation. Based on this review and survey, develop and follow a plan,\nprocess, and procedure to ensure that the inspection, testing, and monitoring of pipe\ncoating under thermal insulation are performed in a manner consistent with\n49 C.F.R. § 195.481(b).\nWithin 30 days following receipt of this Final Order, Respondent must submit to the\nRegion Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, 8701 South Gessner Drive, Suite 1110, Houston, Texas 77074, its plans,\nprocedures, and records that demonstrate compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.481(b) and\nthis compliance order. The Regional Director will determine the adequacy of\nRespondent’s submission and indicate any required changes.\nRespondent is requested to maintain documentation of the safety improvement and\ncompliance costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nR.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total\ncost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and\n(2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other physical changes to the\npipeline infrastructure.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, 6, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n\n\n\n6\n49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to investigate the effect\nof corrosive gas on its pipeline and take steps to minimize internal corrosion.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Texas Eastern failed to identify and monitor dead-\nend sections of pipe at the Iowa Facility in the Lake Charles, Louisiana, unit area;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to clean and coat\nportions of its pipeline exposed to atmospheric corrosion at two locations in the Lake\nCharles, Louisiana area. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at Mainline Block Valve\nMP 49.64 and at the Vermillion 265 offshore platform, PHMSA investigators observed\ndisbonded coating, atmospheric corrosion, and severe pitting in some locations;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain an effective\npatrol program to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission pipeline\nright-of-way. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Texas Eastern failed to remove\novergrowth and debris on its Longview, Texas rights-of-way at MP 229 and 306.57 on\nLine 11, and MP 23, 24.24, and 44 on Line 13, which hampered patrolling of these areas;\nand\n49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to place and maintain\nline markers as close as practical over each buried transmission line and main.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that in the Little Rock, Arkansas area, Texas Eastern did\nnot place markers as close as practical at MP 85.12, downstream from a valve in an open\nfield area, and at MP 339.09, upstream and downstream from mainline valve 1-496. The\nNotice further alleged that, in the Portland south unit in Texas, Texas Eastern did not\nplace markers as close as practical at MP 23.25, on the rear fence at Measuring Station\n73258/59, where the line enters a fenced area.\nTexas Eastern presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":35886}