{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120175013","title":"COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-04-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120175013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLONIAL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.202. The case was opened on 2017-04-27 and is reported as closed as of 2018-03-27. Proposed civil penalty: $32,800. Assessed civil penalty: $32,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120175013_Final Order_03072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175013/120175013_Final%20Order_03072018.pdf\n\n120175013_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175013/120175013_Final%20Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\n120175013_NOPV PCP_04272017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175013/120175013_NOPV%20PCP_04272017.pdf\n\n120175013_NOPV PCP_04272017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175013/120175013_NOPV%20PCP_04272017_text.pdf\n\n120175013_Operator Response to Notice_06142017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175013/120175013_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06142017.pdf\n\n120175013_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\nMarch 7, 2018\nMr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr.\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100\nAlpharetta, GA 30009\nRe: CPF No. 1-2017-5013\nDear Mr. Blount:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $32,800. 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 certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Jim Fischer, Virginia State Corporation Commission\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nColonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5013\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 7, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia State\nCorporation Commission (VA SCC), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of the facilities and records of Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial or Respondent)\nin Cumberland County, Virginia, at the site of the company’s Cobbs Creek Relocation Project.\nColonial owns and operates approximately 5,500 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline from Texas\nto New Jersey.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 27, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding Colonial had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.202 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $32,800 for the alleged violation.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Colonial responded to the Notice\nby letter dated June 14, 2017 (Response). The company did not contest the allegation of\nviolation but requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\n1 Colonial Pipeline Company website, available at http://www.colpipe.com/home/about-colonial/system-map (last\naccessed Oct. 12, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5013\nPage 2\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by failing to construct its\npipeline system in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are\nconsistent with the requirements of Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial failed\nto follow its own written procedures and the manufacturer’s specifications for coating\napplication on the main at 1617 Columbia Road near Cedar Plains Road in Cumberland County,\nVirginia.\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. § 195.202 by failing to construct its\npipeline system in accordance with comprehensive written specifications consistent with the\nrequirements of Part 195.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken 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.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $32,800 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.202, for failing to follow its own written procedures and the manufacturer’s specifications\nfor coating application on its pipeline system. This proposed penalty amount was based, among\nother factors, on consideration of Colonial’s history of prior offenses for the five-year period\nprior to the approximate date of the Notice. In this case, Colonial had one prior offense in the\nfive-year period preceding the Notice.3 See, In the Matter of Colonial Pipeline Company, Final\nOrder, CPF No. 1-2011-5007 (May 24, 2012) (finding that Colonial violated § 195.402(a) by\nfailing to include procedures in its operations and maintenance manual for having personnel,\nequipment, instruments, tools, and material available as needed at the scene of an emergency).\nIn its Response, Colonial sought mitigation of the proposed penalty amount because it did not\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n3 Violation Report, at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5013\nPage 3\nbelieve that this prior offense should factor into the penalty assessment.4 Specifically, Colonial\nasserted that although the date of the Final Order (May 24, 2012) was within the five-year period\nprior to the approximate date of the Notice, the underlying inspection occurred in October 2010,\nwhich lay outside the five-year period.5 Therefore, Colonial concluded that this should not count\nas a prior offense.\nIn evaluating an operator’s history of prior offenses in a given case, PHMSA considers prior\noffenses to consist of findings of violation, as set forth in a Final Order issued within the past\nfive years. Potential compliance issues discovered during inspections and merely alleged to be\nprobable violations in Notices are not considered because the allegations may not be upheld in\nthe Final Order. For example, after an inspection, PHMSA may elect to issue a Notice of\nProbable Violation setting forth regulatory violations that an operator is “alleged to have\nviolated.” § 190.207(b)(1). This initiates an enforcement proceeding that concludes (absent\ncertain appellate options) in a Final Order, which sets forth findings of violations. See §\n190.213(a)(1) (noting that a final order includes “[a] statement of findings and determinations on\nall material issues, including a determination as to whether each alleged violation has been\nproved”). Therefore, the date of an inspection or the date of the notice of probable violation are\nnot the dates on which a finding of violation is made. For these reasons, PHMSA only considers\nFinal Orders to determine if an operator has had prior findings of violation in the five-year period\nprior to the Notice.6 In this case, the Final Order issued on May 24, 2012, is considered a prior\noffense for purposes of calculating the proposed civil penalty for the Notice issued on April 27,\n2017.\nFurther, in reviewing the other civil penalty assessment criteria, I find that Colonial failed to\ncomply with a requirement that was clearly applicable, that the company did not have a\nreasonable justification for its noncompliance, but that occurred in a non-high consequence area\n(HCA). I would also note that the application of coating is an important task that, if not properly\ncarried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, can subject the pipe to\naccelerated corrosion and potential failure. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $32,800 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.202.\nFailure to pay the $32,800 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\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.\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\n4 Response, at 1.\n5 Id., at 1-2.\n6 See, e.g., Violation Report at 3 (noting the number of findings of violation in Order) (emphasis added).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5013\nPage 4\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. The terms and\nconditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 7, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11613}