# ARLINGTON STORAGE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120151026
- **title:** ARLINGTON STORAGE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2015-11-17
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.705(b), 192.706, 192.709(c).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151026.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151026.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151026
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120151026
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ARLINGTON STORAGE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.705(b),  192.706,  192.709(c). The case was opened on 2015-11-17 and is reported as closed as of 2017-01-25. Proposed civil penalty: $98,100. Assessed civil penalty: $98,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120151026_Final Order_01062017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151026/120151026_Final%20Order_01062017.pdf

120151026_Final Order_01062017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151026/120151026_Final%20Order_01062017_text.pdf

120151026_NOPV_ PCP_11172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151026/120151026_NOPV_%20PCP_11172015.pdf

120151026_NOPV_ PCP_11172015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151026/120151026_NOPV_%20PCP_11172015_text.pdf

120151026_Operator Response to Notice_12152015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151026/120151026_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12152015.pdf

120151026_Final Order_01062017_text.pdf

January 6, 2017
Mr. Robert G. Phillips
Chairman, President and CEO
Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2550
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 1-2015-1026
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued to your subsidiary, Arlington Storage Company,
LLC, in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a total civil
penalty of $98,100. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This
enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Acting Regional Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA, OPS
Ms. Alice Ratcliffe, Pipeline Compliance Manager, Arlington Storage Company, LLC,
801 Cherry Street, Suite 3800, Unit 20, Fort Worth, Texas 76102
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_______________________________________________ )
In the Matter of )
Arlington Storage Company, LLC, )
a subsidiary of Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, ) )
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________________ )
CPF No. 1-2015-1026
FINAL ORDER
On August 17-19, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the New York State
Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), acting as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of the records and above-ground piping of Arlington Storage
Company, LLC (Arlington or Respondent), at the company’s Seneca Lake gas storage facility in
Watkins Glen, New York. Arlington, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crestwood Midstream
Partners, LP (Crestwood), currently controls 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas storage in
upstate New York. Crestwood is a publicly-traded master limited partnership that owns and
operates midstream assets located primarily in the Marcellus Shale, Bakken Shale, Delaware
Permian Basin, PRB Niobrara Shale, Barnett Shale, Fayetteville Shale and Haynesville Shale
areas.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 17, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Arlington
had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and assessing a civil penalty of $98,100
for the alleged violations.
Crestwood responded to the Notice on behalf of Arlington, by letter dated December 15, 2015
(Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but offered additional
information in response to the Notice and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 See http://www.crestwoodlp.com/home/default.aspx. Current as of 5/20/2016.



CPF No. 1-2015-1026
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Respondent did not contest the following allegations of violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), which states:
§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.
(a) . . .
(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the
operating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant
factors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in
the following table:
Maximum interval between patrols
Class
location of
line
At highway and railroad
crossings
At other places
1,2 7½ months; but at least twice
each calendar year
15 months; but at least
once each calendar year
3 4½ months; but at least four
times each calendar year
7½ months; but at least
twice each calendar year
4 4½ months; but at least four
times each calendar year
4½ months; but at least
four times each calendar
year.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to conduct patrols
of the company’s Seneca West Pipeline at the required frequency. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Arlington’s patrolling records and procedures for highway and railroad crossings
from 2013 through 2015 showed Arlington had failed to conduct four patrols at the required
frequency. According to the Notice, the patrols in Class 1 and 2 locations that had been
conducted on June 4, 2014 and April 13, 2015 exceeded the code requirement by 16 and 85 days,
respectively. In addition, the patrols in Class 3 areas that had been conducted on June 11, 2014
and January 21, 2015 exceeded the code requirement by 74 and 47 days, respectively.
In its Response, Arlington did not contest the allegations of violation but requested mitigation of
the proposed penalty for several reasons. These arguments will be discussed in the “Assessment
of Penalty” section below. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to conduct patrols on the Seneca West
Pipeline at the required frequency.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.
Leakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However,



CPF No. 1-2015-1026
Page 3
in the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with §
192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector
equipment must be conducted –
(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year; . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct leakage
surveys on the Seneca West Pipeline at the required frequency. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Arlington’s leak-survey records and procedures for highway and railroad crossings from
2013 through 2015 showed Arlington had failed to conduct patrols at the required frequency on
two occasions. The Class 3 leak surveys performed on June 11, 2014 allegedly exceeded the
deadline by 23 days and only one survey, instead of two, had been conducted in calendar year
2014.
In its Response, Arlington did not contest the allegations of violation, but requested mitigation of
the proposed penalty for several reasons. These arguments will be discussed in the “Assessment
of Penalty” section below. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct leakage surveys on the Seneca
West Pipeline at the required frequency.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.
Each operator shall maintain the following records for transmission
lines for the periods specified:
(a) …
(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by
subparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until
the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709 by failing to keep records of
each inspection and test required by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least five years or until
the next inspection or test is completed, whichever is longer. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Arlington did not have records showing that each transmission-line valve for the Seneca
West Pipeline that might be required during an emergency was inspected and partially operated
at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.2 During the NYSDPS
inspection conducted on August 17, 2015, Arlington personnel stated that valve-inspection
records for 2014 were missing and could not be located.
In its Response, Arlington did not contest the allegations of violation, but requested mitigation of
the proposed penalty for several reasons. These arguments will be discussed in the “Assessment
of Penalty” section below. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that
2 Required under 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a).



CPF No. 1-2015-1026
Page 4
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709 by failing to keep records of each inspection and test
required by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least five years or until the next inspection or test
is completed, whichever is longer.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $98,100 for the violations cited above.
As noted above, Respondent did not contest any of the allegations of violation but requested
mitigation of all three proposed penalties for several reasons. First, Arlington argued that it was
going through a merger process at the time of the violations and that there were “changes in
philosophy, leadership and responsibility that ultimately contributed to delays and confusion.”3
Second, the company pointed out that the untimely death of a “seasoned supervisor only three (3)
months before the August 2015 inspection, created a void of regulatory and compliance
knowledge which furthered confusion for employees.”4
Third, Arlington argued that there were a number of other key personnel losses that led to
deficiencies in the timeliness of certain periodic activities and record keeping that would not
have otherwise occurred. Fourth, the company argued that Crestwood had taken affirmative
steps to address a number of deficiencies as a result of the NYSDPS inspections and had even
created a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Compliance Team to oversee the company’s
compliance regime.
While PHMSA acknowledges that compliance lapses may sometimes occur during changes in
management or personnel, applauds Arlington’s recent efforts to improve compliance, and
understands Crestwood’s commitment to the highest level of safety, I am not convinced that any
of these factors justifies a reduction in the proposed penalties in this particular case. If anything,
changes in ownership and personnel are precisely the sorts of events that routinely occur with
many pipeline operators and should be anticipated so that no safety violations occur during such
3 Response, at 1.
4 Id.



CPF No. 1-2015-1026
Page 5
changes. As for the creation of a new DOT Compliance Team and other measures taken by
Crestwood to improve compliance, these are laudable efforts but ones that any prudent operator
would be expected to take in the wake of PHMSA or NYSDPS inspections and notices of
violation.
Each of the proposed penalties are discussed more specifically below.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $42,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.705(b), for failing to conduct patrols of the Seneca West Pipeline at the required
frequency. As discussed above, I found that Arlington violated § 192.705(b) and that the
company’s general arguments for mitigation of the proposed penalty were unpersuasive. This
violation involved a failure to conduct necessary patrolling of Respondent’s pipeline facilities in
a High Consequence Area (HCA), where an accident could potentially affect populated or
environmentally sensitive areas. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $42,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.705(b).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $39,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.706, for failing to conduct leak surveys on the Seneca West Pipeline at the required
frequency. As discussed above, I found that Arlington violated § 192.706 and that the
company’s arguments for mitigation of the proposed penalty were unpersuasive. This violation
involved a failure to conduct leakage surveys of Respondent’s pipeline facilities in an HCA,
where an accident could potentially affect populated or environmentally sensitive areas.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $39,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.706.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.709, for failing to keep records of each inspection and test required by subparts L and M of
Part 192 for at least five years or until the next test is completed, whichever is longer. As
discussed above, I found that Arlington violated § 192.709 and that the company’s arguments for
mitigation of the proposed penalty were unpersuasive. This violation involved a failure to keep
proper records of inspections and tests performed in HCAs, where an accident could potentially
affect populated or environmentally sensitive areas. Accordingly, having reviewed the record
and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $16,100 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $98,100.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.



CPF No. 1-2015-1026
Page 6
Failure to pay the $98,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including
any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final
Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is
waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
January 6, 2017
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 17861