{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42021030NOPV","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":"2021-04-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 190.203(f), 190.341(m).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021030nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021030nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021030nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42021030NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 190.203(f),  190.341(m). The case was opened on 2021-04-20 and is reported as closed as of 2021-09-02. Proposed civil penalty: $49,000. Assessed civil penalty: $49,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42021030NOPV_Final Order_08232021_(21-201900).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021030NOPV/42021030NOPV_Final%20Order_08232021_(21-201900).pdf\n\n42021030NOPV_Final Order_08232021_(21-201900)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021030NOPV/42021030NOPV_Final%20Order_08232021_(21-201900)_text.pdf\n\n42021030NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_05202021_(21-201900).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021030NOPV/42021030NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05202021_(21-201900).pdf\n\n42021030NOPV_PCP_04202021_(21-201900).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021030NOPV/42021030NOPV_PCP_04202021_(21-201900).pdf\n\n42021030NOPV_PCP_04202021_(21-201900)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021030NOPV/42021030NOPV_PCP_04202021_(21-201900)_text.pdf\n\n42021030NOPV_Final Order_08232021_(21-201900)_text.pdf\n\nAugust 23, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: michele.harradence@enbridge.com\nMichele Harradence\nSenior Vice President and Chief Operations Officer\nGas Transmission & Midstream Business Unit\nEnbridge, Inc.\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, Texas 77056\nRe: CPF No. 4-2021-030-NOPV\nDear Ms. Harradence:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $49,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Nathan Atanu, Manager, Operational Compliance, Enbridge, Inc.,\nnathan.atanu@enbridge.com\nCONFIRMATION 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 )\nTexas Eastern Transmission, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2021-030-NOPV\na subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 27, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(c), the Associate Administrator, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nissued an order granting a special permit to Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (TETLP or\nRespondent), waiving certain provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 (Special Permit) for segments of\nthe TETLP 24-inch Line 12 and 30-inch Line 19 pipeline systems located in Perry, Berks,\nHuntingdon, Juniata, Montgomery, and Bucks Counties, Pennsylvania and Hunterdon County,\nNew Jersey.1 The order placed certain conditions and limitations on the Special Permit.2 On\nMay 15, 2015, PHMSA amended the Special Permit segment definitions, conditions, and\nlimitations.3 TETLP is a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Partners, LP, a subsidiary of Enbridge,\nInc., and operates a natural gas transportation network of 8,835 miles from the Gulf Coast to the\nnortheast United States.\nOn multiple dates beginning December 3, 2020 through April 1, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, a PHMSA representative conducted an inspection of TETLP’s 2020 Special Permit\nAnnual Report. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director),\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated April 20, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation and\nProposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that TETLP had violated the conditions of the Special Permit and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $49,000 for the alleged violation.\nTETLP responded to the Notice by letter dated May 20, 2021 (Response). Although TETLP\nstated it was not contesting the allegation and would pay the civil penalty, TETLP offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice and expressed partial disagreement with the\n1 See PHMSA RSPA-2003-15122.\n2 Id.\n3 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-030-NOPV\nPage 2\nfacts supporting the allegation. This information is discussed in more detail below. Respondent\ndid not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated the order and Special Permit as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated Special Permit Condition 20 which states:\nCondition 20\n(a) General: TETLP must account for ILI tool tolerance and corrosion\ngrowth rates in scheduled response times and repairs and document and\njustify the values used. TETLP must demonstrate ILI Tool tolerance accuracy\nfor each ILI Tool run by usage of calibration excavations and unity plots that\ndemonstrate ILI Tool accuracy to meet the tool accuracy specification\nprovided by the vendor (typical for depth within +10% accuracy for 80% of\nthe time). The unity plots must show: a) actual anomaly depth versus\npredicted depth and b) actual failure pressure/MAOP versus predicted failure\npressure/MAOP. Discovery date must be within 90 days of an ILI Tool run\nfor each type [of] ILI Tool (HR-geometry, HR-deformation or high resolution\nHR-MFL) . . . .\n(d) Response Time for ILI Results: The following section provides the\nrequired timing for excavation, investigation, and remediation of anomalies\nbased on ILI data results in accordance with 49 CFR §§ 192.485 and 192.933,\nand must incorporate appropriate class location design factors in the anomaly\nrepair criteria for special permit segments and special permit inspection areas\nincluding all HCAs. Reassessment by ILI will reset the timing for anomalies\nnot already investigated and/or repaired. TETLP must evaluate ILI data by\nusing either the ASME Standard B31G, \"Manual for Determining the\nRemaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines\" (ASME B31G), the modified\nB31G (0.85dL) or R-STRENG for calculating the predicted FPR to determine\nanomaly responses.\n■ Special permit inspection area:\n- Immediate response: Any anomaly within a special permit\ninspection area operating up to 80.77% SMYS that meets either: (1)\nan FPR equal to or less than 1.1; or (2) an anomaly depth equal to or\ngreater than 80% wall thickness loss.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow the requirements in Condition 20 of the\nSpecial Permit for discovery and response time following the performance of an in-line\ninspection (ILI) tool run in a special permit inspection area. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTETLP failed to discover two anomalous conditions within 90 days following the completion of\nan ILI tool run and also failed to take action as required in response to an immediate response\ncondition located in a Class 1 location in accordance with Condition 20 and 49 C.F.R. §§\n192.485 and 192.933.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-030-NOPV\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that TETLP’s 2020 Special Permit Annual Report included the identification\nof two anomalous conditions that were identified with an ILI tool run with Magnetic Flux\nLeakage – Circumferential Technology (MFL-C). This test had been conducted on November\n21, 2019, and the final vendor report was delivered on March 18, 2020. However, TETLP failed\nto discover the conditions until April 23, 2020, 154 days after the ILI run date.\nThe Notice further stated that the anomalous conditions caused Failure Pressure Ratios (FPR) of\n1.038 and 1.164 on Line 12 at Mile Post (MP) 97.19. This pipeline location is within Special\nPermit Inspection Area A, operates at 77.7% specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), and is a\nClass 1 location requiring immediate action.\nIn its Response, TETLP raised three points. First, it recognized that Condition 20 of the Special\nPermit requires discovery within 90 days of an ILI tool run for “(HR-geometry, HR-deformation\nor high resolution HR-MFL)” ILI technology and that discovery did not occur for 154 days.\nTETLP noted that it utilized Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) ILI technology\nwhich was not included under the 90-day discovery deadline. TETLP also noted that EMAT\ntechnology results in longer vendor analysis timelines than traditional ILI technology. Second,\nTETLP agrees that it conducted MFL-C ILI tool runs for which it did not have discovery within\nthe required 90 days. TETLP stated, however, that the Special Permit did not specify MFL-C\ntechnology as subject to the 90-day deadline. Third, TETLP argued that it did not fail to comply\nwith the response requirements in Condition 20 because it did not consider the anomalous\nconditions to require an immediate response. TETLP ran both MFL-A (conducted on May 3,\n2018, and assessed on August 14, 2018) and MFL-C (conducted on November 21, 2019, vendor\nreport delivered March 18, 2020, and assessed on April 23, 2020) ILI tools because they provide\nsomewhat differing and complementary analysis. TETLP argued its MFL-A results, an FPR of\n1.419, “conclusively determined” that the anomalous condition at MP 97.19 did not meet the\nrequirements of an “immediate” anomalous condition under 49 C.F.R. § 192.993. However,\nRespondent also stated that “[g]iven the facts above, TETLP is not contesting this finding and\nwill make the civil penalty payment of $49,000.”\nAfter reviewing the evidence presented, I disagree with Respondent’s contentions. With regards\nto Respondent’s first and second points, Condition 20 mandated a 90-day discovery date for\n“each type [of] ILI Tool.” The quoted phrase means each type of ILI tool that Respondent uses,\nincluding but not limited to the types of ILI tools specifically mentioned. Accordingly,\nRespondent was required to discover conditions within 90 days following the completion of each\nof its tool runs, including EMAT, MFL-C and MFL-A. Respondent’s failure to discover two\nconditions within that timeframe did not comply with Condition 20. If Respondent determines\nthat it cannot regularly meet the 90-day requirement in the Special Permit using a certain ILI\ntechnology, such as where vendors take longer to provide a response, the appropriate course of\naction pursuant to § 190.341 would be for Respondent to request modifications to the Special\nPermit and provide appropriate supporting evidence to extend the timeline, including appropriate\nmeasures to mitigate any safety risks that result from longer discovery times.\nRespondent’s third contention, that its MFL-A test, conducted 18 months prior its MFL-C test,\n“conclusively determine[d]” there was no immediate anomalous condition, also fails. The\nSpecial Permit states an immediate response is required if the FPR is equal to or less than 1.1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-030-NOPV\nPage 4\nThe MFL-C results, an FPR of 1.038, is within that range. Respondent points to the MFL-A\nresults from 18 months earlier that showed an FPR of 1.419. However, external corrosion is a\ntime-dependent threat, and results from 18 months prior may not be sufficient grounds to discard\nthe MFL-C results. Although TETLP’s response describes the comparative advantages and\ndisadvantages of MFL-A and MFL-C tools, TETLP does not satisfactorily explain why a result\nfrom 18 months prior would end the matter “conclusively.” I find that Respondent’s failure to\ntake action was neither justified nor in accordance with Condition 20.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find\nthat Respondent violated Condition 20 of the Special Permit by failing to discover two\nanomalous conditions within 90 days following the completion of an ILI tool run conducted on\nNovember 21, 2019, and also failing to take action as required in response to an immediate\nresponse condition located in Area A, a Class 1 location.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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\nrelated series of violations.4\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $49,000 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $49,000 for Respondent’s violation of Condition\n20 of the Special Permit, for failing to discovery anomalies within 90 days of an ILI and failing\nto take immediate action following discovery of an anomalous condition within a Class 1\nlocation. Respondent did not present any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $49,000 for violation of Condition 20 of the\nSpecial Permit.\nFailure to pay the $49,000 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\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-030-NOPV\nPage 5\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.\nIssuance of this enforcement action does not preclude PHMSA’s authority to seek a modification,\nsuspension, or revocation of the Special Permit issued under PHMSA RSPA-2003-15122 at any time,\nas provided in 49 CFR § 190.341(j)(1). If such action is taken, PHMSA will provide Texas Eastern\nTransmission, LP with the opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken.\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 the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nAugust 23, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":16179}