{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120020003","title":"EVAN ENERGY CO LC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-01-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.479(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120020003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EVAN ENERGY CO LC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.479(a). The case was opened on 2002-01-29 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\n120020003_Final Order_04032009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020003/120020003_Final%20Order_04032009.pdf\n\n120020003_Final Order_04032009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020003/120020003_Final%20Order_04032009_text.pdf\n\n120020003_Final Order_09012005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020003/120020003_Final%20Order_09012005.pdf\n\n120020003_Final Order_10302002.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020003/120020003_Final%20Order_10302002.pdf\n\n120020003_final order_10302002_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020003/120020003_final%20order_10302002_text.pdf\n\n120020003_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\n120020003_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\n120020003_final order_10302002_text.pdf\n\n400 seventh stteet 8 w\nWeehtngten, D C 20590\nMr. Bob A. Dahlin, II\nManager, Pipeline Design k Service\nEvan Fnergy Company, L. C.\n1999 East Stone Drive, Suite 201\nKingsport, TN 37660\nRe: CPF No. 1-2002-0003\nDear Mr. Dahlin:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by thc Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove\"rcfercnccd case, It makes 8 founding of vtolation and requires certain corrective acbon. tIIt hen\nthe terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region„ this\ncnforccrncnt action will bc closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service of th8t\ndocument under 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 5,\nGwendolyn M. 1 ill\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOAice of Pipeline Safety\nCERTIFIED MAII. - RETURN RECEIPT RE UF. 'TED\n\n\n\nDEPAR IMFNT OF TRANSPOR'I ATION\nRESEARCII AND SPUCIAI. PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELKE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nCPF No, 1-2002-0003\nEva. n Energy Company„L. C.\n,\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 7„2001„pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ( 60117, 8 representative of the Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS) conducted an on-sltc plpcllnc safety Inspcctlon of Rcspondcnt s Rcd Onion MouAtatn facllltlcs\nand records in Rise County„Virginia. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region,\nOPS issued to Respondent by letter dated January 29 2002 8 Notice of Probable Violation and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice) In accordance with 49 C F R ) 190 207 the Notice proposed\nflndlng that Respondent had vlo18tcd 49 C, F, R. ) 192. 479(8).\nRespondent fcspondcd to the Notice by letter d8tcd March 13, 2002 (Rcsponsc). Respondent\ncontested the allegation and offered information to explain the allegations. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing; consequently, Respondent waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem I in the Notice a11eges that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ( 192. 479(8) in failing to protect\naboveground portions ot plpcllne h'oln atfnosphefle corrosion by clthef coatlAg of jacketlflg with. 8\nmaterial suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion and by cleaning the aboveground\nportions. 49 C. F. R. P 192. 479(8) allows for noncompliance where the operator \"can demonstrate by\ntesty lnvcstlg8tlon, of cxpcflcncc In thc alca of appllcatlon, that 8 corrosive atlrlosphcfc docs not\nCXlst.\nIn Icsponsc to Itcrn I, Rcspondcnt contested thc allcgcd vlolatlofl and cxp181flcd, ln I'ts Response, that\ncofnpany personnel had never observed a pipeline leak caused by atmospheric corrosion,\nRespondent states that the mspected plpelme connects thousands of gathering wells to aboveground\ngathering pipeline systems within two natural gas storage fields that have been in service since 1977\nand 1984 and thus the length of service in those storage IICIds demonstrates \" experience in the\n8rea of apphcation, that 8 corrosive atmosphere does not exist. '* Respondent included with its letter\n8, fn8p Indlc8tlng thc loc8tlon of thc lnspcctcd plpcllnc IA fclatlon to thc two g8S flckls 8nd gathering\nwells.\n\n\n\nRespondent did not provide OPS anv evi«lence from Respondent's own tests or investigations to\nassure the lack of 8 conosive atmosphere. The climate in Virginia is not unique such that 8 corrosive\natmosplMI'c docs Ao't cxlst, TIM experience of thc EastcITl Rcglon, OPS„ ls that expose«1 stccl. plpc\nls sub)ect to Btnlsphenc corrosion. Respondent ha«l coated approximately two of 10. 2 mlles of\nexposed plpclllM pI'lof to OPS lnspcctlon. Rcspondcnt « Id not provldc Bn cxplanatlon, however, Bs\nto why coating would be needed in these segments and not on other exposed segments of the same\npipeline. AH exposed segments of the pipeline must meet the requirements of 49 C, F. R,\n) 192 479(a) Accordingly 1 find Respondent violated 49 C F R ( 192 479(a)\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent,\nUnder 49 U. S. C. ( 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns ol\noperates a pipeline facihty is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C, $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R, ( 190, 217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nrcgulatlons applicable to its opcl'atlons,\nClean and cltlMF coat ol\" jacket, with 8 Fnatcrlal suitable for thc pl'cveA'tlon of atmospheric\ncorrosion, each aboveground segnlenl. of thc plpcllnc that ls cxposcd to thc Btlrlosphcrc\nwithin 180 days of receipt of this Final Order,\n2. Within 90 days of receipt of this Final Order, inform the Director, Eastern Region, OPS of\nthe materia selected to be applied to prevent atmospheric corrosion.\nUAder 49 C. F, R. ( 190. 215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder, . The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this 1'inal Order and\nmust contain a brief statement of the issue(s), The filing of the petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, including any required corrective\naction, shaH remain in Ml effect unless the Associate Admimstrator, upon request, grants a stay.\n1 he terms and con«lltlons of this 1'lnal Order arc CAcctlvc on Iccclpt,\nFailure to cornplv with this 1'lnal Order nlay result ln thc Bssessmcn't oj clvll pcnaltlcs of up to\n$25, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the ease for judicial enforcement.\ntBccy Gcrard\nAssoclatc Admlnlstrator\nPor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":25399}