{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120020002M","title":"EVAN ENERGY CO LC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-01-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 191.17, 192.485, 192.503, 192.605(b), 192.605(b)(9), 192.605(c)(1), 192.605(c)(2), 192.605(c)(3), 192.605(c)(4), 192.605(d), 192.613, 192.614(c)(6), 192.617, 192.627.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020002m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020002m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020002m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120020002M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving EVAN ENERGY CO LC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.17,  192.485,  192.503,  192.605(b),  192.605(b)(9),  192.605(c)(1),  192.605(c)(2),  192.605(c)(3),  192.605(c)(4),  192.605(d),  192.613,  192.614(c)(6),  192.617,  192.627. The case was opened on 2002-01-25 and is reported as closed as of 2009-04-03. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120020002M_Final Order_04032009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020002M/120020002M_Final%20Order_04032009.pdf\n\n120020002M_Final Order_04032009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020002M/120020002M_Final%20Order_04032009_text.pdf\n\n120020002M_Final Order_09012005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020002M/120020002M_Final%20Order_09012005.pdf\n\n120020002M_Final Order_12032002.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020002M/120020002M_Final%20Order_12032002.pdf\n\n120020002m_final order_12032002_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020002M/120020002m_final%20order_12032002_text.pdf\n\n120020002M_Final Order_09012005.pdf\n\nof Transporation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nPipeline and\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAdministration\nHazordous Materials Satety\nSEP - 1 2005\nMr. Craig Massey\nPresident\n4 North Fourth Street, Suite 100\nEvan Energy Company, LC\nRichmond, VA 23219\nRe: CPF Nos. 1-2003-0002, 1-2002-0003, 1-2002-0002M\nDear Mr. Massey:\nEnclosed is a Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. The\nOrder finds Evan Energy violated the terms of two previously-issued Final Orders (CPF Nos. 1-\n2002-0003 and 1-2002-0002M). The Order also amends the terms of a Compliance Order and\nfinds that Evan Energy has partially addressed some of the inadequacies in its procedures. When\nnforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of tha\nhe terms of the Order are completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, thi\ndocurient under 49 C.F.R. $//90.5.\nSincerely,|\ntant\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosures\n..cE: Mr. Brint Camp\nChief Operating Officer\nEvan Energy Company, LC\nMr. Massoud Tahamtani\nDirector, Division of Utility and Railroad Safety\nVirginia State Corporation Commission\nCERTIFIED VAIL KETURN RECEIPT KEQUESTEU\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 2Ut90\nIn the Matter of\nEvrn Energy Company, L.C.,\nRerpoudentr\nCPF Noo. l-20034m2. l-2002-0003.\nr-2002-um2-M\nFINAL ORDER\nOn or about December 10, 2003, a rcpresentative of the Oflice of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nResearch and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), conducted an investigation to determine\nReryondent's compliance with two Final ffiers issued to Respondent in October and Decernber,\n2002 (CPF Nos. l-2002-0003 and l-2002-0002M, respectively).r As a resutt of the\ninvestigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter datcd\nDeccrnber 10,2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposcd Civil Penalty (CPF No. l-\n2003-0002). [n accordancc with 49 C.f.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding Respondent\nhad violated the wo above-refercnccd Final Orders and proposed assessing a civil pcnalty of\n$10,000 for the alleged violations,\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated Juuary 2, zO04. Respondent initially\ncontested one of the allegations and requcsted a hearing. The hearing was held on March 23,\n2004 in Washingron, DC. Aftsr the hearing, Rcspondcnt provided additional infiormation by\nletter dated April 19, 2004. In its post-hcaring letter, Respondent aclnowledged the validity of\nthe facts alleged in the Notice, requested the proposed penalty be eliminated, and reguested\namendment to one of the Ordcn. By email dated April 21, 2004, Respondent submitted\nprocedural amendments to the Director, Eastem Region, OPS.\nFINDINGS OFVIOLATION\nItem A in the Notice alleged Respondent violated the terms of a Final Order issued to\nRespondcnl on October 30, 2W2 (CPF No. l-2002-0003). By the terms of that Order,\nRespondcnt was required to clean and eithcr coat or jacket each aboveground segmenl of\nRespondent's ten-mite Red Onion Pipeline. Respondent did not contest the allegation that it\nfailed to clean and coat the pipelinc as required in that frcr.\n' The Norman Y. Mrneta Rescorch and Special Programs Ifiprovemcnt Act, Pub. L. No. 108-426,\nI l8 Srar. 2421 (2W4), creatcd the Pipeline and Hazardous Matcrials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and\ntransfened the authority of RSPA cxerciscd rmda chapter 601 of title 49, Unitcd States Code, to thc\nAdminisraror of PHMSA. See also 70 Fcd. Reg.8299, 8301-t302 (2005) (dclcgating authonty to the\nAdministrator of PHMSA).\n\n\n\nInstead, Respondent contested the underlying finding of violation in the previously-issued\nOrder. Since Respondent did not file a petition for reconsideration in accordance with § 190.215\nwithin 20 days of service of that Order, Respondent has waived its right to request\nreconsideration of that Order. Accordingly, the Order will not be reconsidered. Respondent also\ncontested the authority of OPS to regulate the Red Onion Pipeline. At the hearing, OPS\npresented evidence showing the pipeline is subject to OPS regulatory authority. In its post-\nhearing submission, Respondent agreed to recognize the Red Onion Pipeline as a transmission\nline subject to OPS regulativn\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated the terms of the Final Order (CPF No. 1-2002-0003) by\nfailing to clean and coat the pipeline as ordered.\nItem B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated the terms of another Final Order issued to\nRespondent on December 3, 2002 (CPF No. 1-2002-0002M). By the terms of that Order,\nRespondent was required to amend its procedures and submit documentation of compliance\nwithin 90 days. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent did not contest the allegation that\nit failed to amend its procedures as required by that Order. Accordingly, 1 find Respondent\nviolated the terms of the Final Order (CPF No. 1-2002-0002M) by failing 10 amend its\nprocedures within 90 days.\nThese| findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 3100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $10,000 for the violations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the eivil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondenr's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe pipeline safety standards located at 49 C.F.R. Part| 192 ensure a level of safety for the\nprotection of the public, property and the environment. Actions specified in orders issued by\ncompliance with these safety standards. Respondent's failure to comply with the terms of two\nOPS are designed to bring an operator's pipeline system and applicable procedures into\norders presenred i threat to safety by atlowing a noncompliant condition to remam on\n\n\n\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Respondent requested elimination of the civil penalty duc to\nRespondent's limited financial resources. At the hearing, Respondent submitted evidence of its\nannual gross and net income. In its post-hearing response, Respondent again provided yearly\nrevenue figures and requested OPS consider Respondent as a \"small business\" defined by the\nU.S. Small Business Administration.\nBased on the financial information provided by\nRespondent, I find assessment of a civil penalty would have an adverse effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I do not assess a\ncivil penalty for the violations.\nITEM A. COMPLIANCE ORDER\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns\nOT! operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under Chapter 601. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, OPS\nissued to Respondent, on October 30, 2002, a Compliance Order (CPF No. 1-2002-0003)\nrequiring Respondent to take specific action to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations.,\nIn its post-hearing letter dated April 19, 2004, Respondent requested OPS amend the terms of the\nCompliance Order to allow Respondent to umplement a less costly alternative to the originally.\nordered compliance terms. After reviewing the proposal submitted by Respondent and the\nrecommendation of the Director, Easter Region, OPS, I find amendment to the compliance\nterms of the Order is appropriate. The amended terms will ensure the safety of the pipeline\nsystem and avoid undue financial hardship to Respondent. Accordingly, 1 hereby amend the\nOrder (CPF No. 1-2002-0003) as follows:\nThe following Items replace the originally-ordered terms of the Compliance Order CPF No. I-\n2002-0003:\n1.| Crib and electrically insulate from contact with the soil each aboveground segment of\nRespondent's pipeline at a rate of no less than fifteen percent (15%) of the aboveground\nsegments per year to be completed by September 30, 2011. Cribbing shall involve\nraising the aboveground pipe and resting it on 6-inch pipe segments (the cribbing pipe)\nplaced at 50-foot intervais. The cribbing pipe shall be at least 24-inches in length and\nsleeved with a non-electrically conductive sleeve, such as plastic or reinforced fiberglass,\nplaced between the cribbing pipe and the aboveground gas pipeline to prevent clectrical\ncontact between the aboveground pipeline and the soil.\n2. Until Item 1 is completed in full, conduct annual inspections (spot checks) for corresion\nconditions on un-cribbed aboveground pipeline segments at the points of transition from\nwet to dry soil conditions. These inspections shall consist of digging beneath the pipe,\ncleaning the pipe, and determining whether corrosion activity is taking place. Document\n\n\n\n4\ncach inspection and detail findings of corrosion on a \"Record of Pipe Inspection\" form.\nIf corrosion is observed, the section of pipe must be cribbed or an anode must be installed\naffect the safe operation of the pipeline\nunless Respondent can document that the corrosion is of a light oxide variety that will not\n3. Monitor all aboveground\nannually for corrosion activity and maintain\ndocumentation of corrosion monitoring and determinations of the presence and degree of\ncorrosion. Monitoring shall continue for the life of the pipeline Of until otherwise\ndetermined in writing by the Director, Eastern Region, OPS\n4. Install a sacrificial anode at rach transition point on the pipeline where buried/coated pipe\nmeets aboveground/incoater Pipe. Installation of anodes Must be completed by\nSeptember 30, 2007\n5. Within 90 days of receipt of this Amendment, submit to the Director, Eastern Ragion.\nOPS, for approval a plan and schedule for implementing cach of the ahove items\n6. A1 least once each six months, starting September 30. 2005, submit a written report on\nthe status of actions taken under each of the above items.\nSubmit the report to the\nDirector, Eastern Region, OPS, and the Director, Division of Utility and Railroad Safety,\nVirginia State Corporation Commission. Supplement the written report with applicable\ndata if requested by the Director, Pastern Region, OPS. Respondent shall submit anual\nreports for the life of the pipeline Of until otherwise determined in writing by the\nDirector, Fastern Region, (PS\nThe Director, Eastern Region, OPS may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the\nrequired items upon a written request by the Respondent demonstrating gond canse for an\nextension.\nITEM B: AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 CF.R. § 190.237, OPS issued to Respondent, On\nDecember 3, 2002, a Final Order (CPF No. 1.2002-0002M) requiring Respondent revise its\nOperations and Maintenance Procedures within 90 days. Although Respondent did not timely\ncomply with the Order, Respondent submitted amendments by email to the Director, Eastern\nRegion, OPS. on April 21, 2004. The Director, Eastern Region, OPS has reviewed the amended\nprocedures and indicated that Respondent has achieved compliance only with Items 1, 2, 3, 4. 5.\n1, and 12 of the Order. Respondent has not achieved compliance with Items 6, 8, 9, 10. 11. 13.\nand 14 of the Order. Accordingly, 1 find portions of Respondent's procedures remain inadequate\nto ensure the safe operation of its pipeline system. Respondent must make the following\nrevisions to its procedures, which were originally ordered in the above referenerd Final Order\nRespondent must:\n\n\n\n5\n1. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for checking\nvariations from normal operation after abnormal operation has ended al sufficient critical\nlocations in the system to determine continued integrity and safe operation, in accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(c)(2). (Item 6 in original).\n2. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for periodically\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found, in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\nreviewing the response of operator personnel in controlling abnormal opcration and\n$ 192.605(c)(4). (Item 8 in original)\n3. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for continuing\nsurveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning changes\nin class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic\nprotection requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions, in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(a). If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in\nunsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator must take action to\nrecondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned\nor phased out, to reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure, in accordance with\n49 C.F .R. § 192.613(b). (Item 9 in original). Respondent's procedures do not address\nleakage history, corrosion, and substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements.\n4. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures for its damage prevention program to\ninclude procedures for follow-up inspection of pipelines that it has reason to believe\ncould he damaged by excavation activities, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(cX6).\n(Item 10 in original). Respondent's procedures do not address leakage surveys in the\ncase of blasting.\n5. Amend its Operaung and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for analyzing\naccidents and failures, including the selection of samples of the failed facility or\nequipment for laboratory examination, where appropriate, for the purpose of determining\nthe causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence, in accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 192.617. (Item 1] in original).\n6. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to reflect the requirement that each tap\nmade on a pipeline under pressure must be performed by a crew qualified to make hot\ntaps, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.627. (Item 13 in original). Respondent's\nprocedures do not include a requirement that the crew be qualified\n7. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for addressing\nthe reduction in pipeline wall thickness caused by localized or general corrosion, in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 192.485. (Item 14 in original) Respondent's procedures do\nnot define what \"severe pitting\" means.\n\n\n\n6\nRespondent must submit the amended procedures to the Regional Director, Eastern Region,\nOPS, within 30 days following receipt of this Final Order. The Regional Director may extend the\nperiod for complying with the required items if the Respondent requests an extension and\nadequately justifies the reasons for the extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up 1o\n$100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the cast for judicial entorcement.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Amendment to Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's\nreceipt of this Amendment and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The terms of the\norder, including any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nSEP - 1 2005\nStatey Gerard\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipcline Safety\n\n120020002M_Final Order_04032009_text.pdf\n\nAPR 3 2009\nMr. Craig Massey\nPresident\nEvan Energy Company, LC\n4 North Fourth Street, Suite 100\nRichmond, Virginia 23219\nMr. John Ebert\nPresident\nAppalachian Natural Gas Distribution Company\n271 West Main Street, Suite 200\nAbingdon, Virginia 24210\nRe: CPF Nos. 1-2003-0002; 1-2002-0003; and 1-2002-0002M\nDear Mr. Massey and Mr. Ebert:\nI am writing in reference to the Final Order issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) in the above-referenced enforcement actions on September 1, 2005, to\nEvan Energy Company, LC (Evan), regarding the company’s 10-mile intrastate gas transmission\npipeline that serves the Red Onion State Prison in Pound, Virginia (Final Order). The Final Order\nrequired Evan to take certain actions to ensure compliance with the Federal Pipeline Safety laws\nand to revise its written safety procedures. While some of these actions have been completed to\ndate, it appears that others may not have been fully satisfied.\nAs you are aware, the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) has recently assumed\njurisdiction over all intrastate gas pipelines in Virginia pursuant to legislation enacted by the\nVirginia General Assembly in 2005. The SCC currently inspects all intrastate gas pipelines and\ncarries out other pipeline safety responsibilities in Virginia under certification from PHMSA\npursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60105. The SCC has informed PHMSA that Appalachian Natural Gas\nDistribution Company (Appalachian) is the new owner and operator of this line, as of January 1,\n2008, and that it has made progress in completing the requirements of the Final Order.\nTherefore, in accordance with the foregoing certification, PHMSA hereby transfers all of its rights\nand authority under the September 1, 2005 Final Order, to the SCC. Accordingly, the pending\nPHMSA enforcement actions [CPF Nos. 1-2003-0002, 1-2002-0003, and 1-2002-0002M]\ninvolving Evan and its successor-in-interest, Appalachian, are now closed.\n\n\n\nPage 2\nMr. Craig Massey\nMr. John Ebert\nRe: CPF Nos. 1-2003-0002; 1-2002-0003; and 1-2002-0002M\nAny further questions you have regarding compliance with pipeline safety regulations should be\ndirected to Mr. Massoud Tahamtani, Director, Division of Utility and Railroad Safety, State\nCorporation Commission, P.O. Box 1197, Richmond, Virginia 23218.\nPlease note that originals of this letter have been sent to Evan Energy Company, LC and\nAppalachian Natural Gas Distribution Company.\nThank you both for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\ncc: Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nMassoud Tahamtani, VA State Corporation Commission\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6163 7497]\n\n120020002m_final order_12032002_text.pdf\n\nUS Department\nof Transportation\nResearich and\nSpecial Programs\nAclminlstrotion\n400 Seventh Street, S W\nWashington, D C 20590\nOEC -3 20m\nMr. Bob A. Dahlin, II\nManager, Pipeline Design & Services\nEvan Energy Company, L. C.\n1999 East Stone Drive, Suite 201\nKingsport, TN 37660\nRe: CPF No. 1-2002-0002M\nDear Mr. Dahlin:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes a finding of inadequate procedures and requires that you revise\ncertain of your Operating and Maintenance Procedures. When the terms of the Order are completed,\nas determined by the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, this enforcement action will be closed. Your\nreceipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nGwendolyn M. Hi 1\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of:\nEvan Energy Company, L. C.\n,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 1-2002-0002M\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 7, 2001, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, a representative of the Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Evan Energy Company's (Respondent's)\nRed Onion Mountain Prison pipeline facilities and records in Wise County, Virginia. As a result of\nthe inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 25,\n2002, a Notice of Amendment (NOA). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 237, the NOA alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent's Operating and Maintenance Procedures and proposed that Respondent\namend its procedures.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nRespondent did not respond to the NOA within 30 days after receiving the NOA. Respondent's\nfailure to respond waives its right to contest the NOA and authorizes me to find the facts as alleged\nin the NOA and to issue a Final Order directing amendment of Respondent's procedures.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent's operations and maintenance procedures are inadequate to\nensure safe operation of its pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C. F. R.\n) 190. 237, Respondent is ordered to make the following revisions to its procedures as more fully\ndescribed in the NOA.\nRespondent must:\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to reflect the requirement that the\nannual report for its transmission system must be submitted each year, not later than\nMarch 15, for the preceding calendar year, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 191. 17.\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include instructions for\nidentifying safety-related conditions so that its personnel performing pipeline\noperations and maintenance tasks can recognize and report conditions that potentially\nmay be safety-related, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 605(d).\n\n\n\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for\nperiodically reviewing the work performed by its personnel to determine the\nadequacy and effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operations and\nmaintenance, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 605(b).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to reflect the requirement that\nadequate precautions must be taken in excavated trenches to protect personnel from\nunsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, including that a breathing apparatus be\navailable when needed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. f 192. 605(b)(9).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for\nabnormal operations to respond to, investigate, and correct the cause of: unintended\nclosure of valves or shutdowns; operation of any safety device; and any other\nforeseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or\npersonnel error, which may result in a hazard to persons or property, in accordance\nwith 49 C. F. R. g 192. 605(c)(1).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for checking\nvariations from normal operation after abnormal operation has ended at sufficient\ncritical locations in the system to determine continued integrity and safe operation,\nin accordance with 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 605(c)(2).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for notifying\nresponsible operator personnel when notice of an abnormal operation is received, in\naccordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 605(c)(3).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for\nperiodically reviewing the response of operator personnel in controlling abnormal\noperation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found, in accordance\nwith 49 C. F. R. g 192. 605(c)(4).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for\ncontinuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate action\nconcerning changes in class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial\nchanges in cathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and\nmaintenance conditions, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 613(a). If a segment of\npipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard\nexists, the operator must take action to recondition or phase out the segment\ninvolved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out, to reduce the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 613(b).\nAmend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures for its damage prevention program\nto include procedures for follow-up inspection of pipelines that it has reason to\nbelieve could be damaged by excavation activities, in accordance with 49 C F. R.\n$ 192. 614(c)(6).\n\n\n\n11. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for\nanalyzing accidents and failures, including the selection of samples of the failed\nfacility or equipment for laboratory examination, where appropriate, for the purpose\nof determining the causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility of a\nrecurrence, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 617.\n12. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for testing\nnew segments of pipeline, or returning to service a segment of pipeline that has been\nrelocated or replaced, in accordance with applicable testing requirements to\nsubstantiate the maximum allowable operating pressure, in accordance with\n49 C. F. R. g 192. 503.\n13. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to reflect the requirement that\neach tap made on a pipeline under pressure must be performed by a crew qualified\nto make hot taps, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 627.\n14. Amend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures to include procedures for\naddressing the reduction in pipeline wall thickness caused by localized or general\ncorrosion, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 485.\nRespondent must submit the amended procedures to the Regional Director, Eastern Region, OPS,\nwithin 90 days following receipt of this Final Order. The Regional Director may extend the period\nfor complying with the required items if the Respondent requests an extension and adequately\njustifies the reasons for the extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25, 000per\nviolation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement. The terms and conditions\nof this Order are effective upon receipt.\nOEC — 3 P(&J)\nDate Issued\ntacey Gerard\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":27608}