{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120191018M","title":"PGPIPELINE, LLC. — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-09-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.243(a), 192.243(b), 192.243(c), 192.243(d), 192.243(e), 192.605(b)(5), 192.615(a)(6), 192.615(a)(8), 192.805(i), 192.909(b), 192.925(b)(4), 192.935(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120191018m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120191018m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120191018m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120191018M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving PGPIPELINE, LLC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.243(a),  192.243(b),  192.243(c),  192.243(d),  192.243(e),  192.605(b)(5),  192.615(a)(6),  192.615(a)(8),  192.805(i),  192.909(b),  192.925(b)(4),  192.935(d). The case was opened on 2019-09-26 and is reported as closed as of 2019-11-05. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120191018M_Closure Letter_11052019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191018M/120191018M_Closure%20Letter_11052019.pdf\n\n120191018M_Closure Letter_11052019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191018M/120191018M_Closure%20Letter_11052019_text.pdf\n\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191018M/120191018M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_09262019.pdf\n\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191018M/120191018M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_09262019_text.pdf\n\n120191018M_Operator Response to Notice_10232019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191018M/120191018M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10232019.pdf\n\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nSeptember 26, 2019\nMr. Steve Newell\nDirector of Finance\nZeeland Farm Services, Inc.\n2525 84th Ave\nZeeland, MI 49464\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\nDear Mr. Newell:\nFrom January 23, 2019 – July 11, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.),\nperformed an integrated inspection of PGPipeline, LLC’s (PGPipeline) pipeline system in\nClearfield, Pennsylvania. PGPipeline is a second-tier subsidiary of Zeeland Farm Services, Inc.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nPGPipeline’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. § 192.243 Nondestructive testing\n(a) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed by any process, other than\ntrepanning, that will clearly indicate defects that may affect the integrity of the weld.\n(b) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed:\n(1) In accordance with written procedures; and\n(2) By persons who have been trained and qualified in the established\nprocedures and with the equipment employed in testing.\n(c) Procedures must be established for the proper interpretation of each\nnondestructive test of a weld to ensure the acceptability of the weld under §192.241(c).\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\n(d) When nondestructive testing is required under §192.241(b), the following\npercentages of each day's field butt welds, selected at random by the operator, must\nbe nondestructively tested over their entire circumference;\n(1) In Class 1 locations, except offshore, at least 10 percent.\n(2) In Class 2 locations, at least 15 percent.\n(3) In Class 3 and Class 4 locations, at crossings of major or navigable rivers,\noffshore, and within railroad or public highway rights-of-way, including\ntunnels, bridges, and overhead road crossings, 100 percent unless\nimpracticable, in which case at least 90 percent. Nondestructive testing must\nbe impracticable for each girth weld not tested.\n(4) At pipeline tie-ins, including tie-ins of replacement sections, 100 percent.\n(e) Except for a welder or welding operator whose work is isolated from the principal\nwelding activity, a sample of each welder or welding operator's work for each day\nmust be nondestructively tested, when nondestructive testing is required under\n§192.241(b).\nPGPipeline’s written procedures were inadequate. Specifically, PGPipeline failed to establish\nwritten procedures for nondestructive testing in accordance with § 192.243.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested PGPipeline’s procedures for\nnondestructive testing. PGPipeline provided its Operations, Maintenance, and Emergency\nManual. However, the manual did not include nondestructive testing procedures addressing any of\nthe aspects required under § 192.243.\n2. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide\nsafety during maintenance and operations.\n…\n(5) Starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline in a manner\ndesigned to assure operation within the MAOP limits prescribed by this part,\nplus the build-up allowed for operation of pressure-limiting and control\ndevices.\nPGPipeline’s written procedures were inadequate. Specifically, PGPipeline’s procedures failed to\naddress starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline in a manner designed to assure\noperation within the MAOP limits, plus the build-up allowed for operation of pressure-limiting\nand control devices.\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Section 4: Operations of the Operations,\nMaintenance and Emergency Manual updated February 17, 2019. The procedures failed to address\npipeline start up and shut down activities in accordance with § 192.605(b)(5).\n3. § 192.615 Emergency Plans\n(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the hazard resulting\nfrom a gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the procedures must provide for\nthe following:\n…\n(6) Emergency shutdown and pressure reduction in any section of the\noperator’s pipeline system necessary to minimize hazards to life of property\nPGPipeline’s written procedures were inadequate. Specifically, PGPipeline’s written procedures\nfailed to provide for the emergency shutdown and pressure reduction of any section of the its\npipeline system necessary to minimize hazards to life and property.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Section 9: Emergency Plan, of the\nOperations, Maintenance and Emergency Manual, updated February 17, 2019. The procedure\nfailed to address emergency shutdown and pressure reduction in accordance with § 192.615(a)(6).\n4. § 192.615 Emergency Plans\n(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the hazard\nresulting from a gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the procedures must provide\nfor the following:\n…\n(8) Notifying appropriate fire, police, and other public officials of gas pipeline\nemergencies and coordinating with them both planned responses and actual\nresponses during an emergency.\nPGPipeline’s written procedures were inadequate. Specifically, PGPipeline’s written procedures\nfailed to provide for notifying appropriate fire, police, and other public officials of gas pipeline\nemergencies and coordinating with them both planned responses and actual responses during an\nemergency.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Section 9: Emergency Plan, of the\nOperations, Maintenance and Emergency Manual, updated February 17, 2019. The procedure\nfailed to address notifications for planned responses per § 192.615(a)(8).\n5. § 192.805 Qualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The\nprogram shall include provisions to:\n…\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency participating\nunder 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the program\nafter the administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with this\nsection. Notifications to PHMSA may be submitted by electronic mail to\nInformationResourcesManager@dot.gov, or by mail to ATTN: Information\nResources Manager DOT/PHMSA/OPS, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New\nJersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.\nPGPipeline’s written qualification program (OQ Plan) was inadequate. Specifically, PGPipeline’s\nOQ Plan failed to address notifications to the appropriate agency when significant modifications\nare made to its operator qualification program.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed PGPipeline’s Operator Qualification Plan,\nupdated January 23, 2017. The plan did not include notification provisions to PHMSA in\naccordance with § 192.805. Instead, the plan only addressed sending notifications to the State\nRegulatory Body. In addition, the plan did not provide clear direction on notifying the appropriate\nagency (PHMSA) only when significant modifications are made to the plan.\n6. § 192.909 How can an operator change its integrity management program?\n(b) Notification. An operator must notify OPS, in accordance with §192.949, of any\nchange to the program that may substantially affect the program's implementation\nor may significantly modify the program or schedule for carrying out the program\nelements. An operator must also notify a State or local pipeline safety authority when\neither a covered segment is located in a State where OPS has an interstate agent\nagreement, or an intrastate covered segment is regulated by that State. An operator\nmust provide the notification within 30 days after adopting this type of change into\nits program.\nPGPipeline’s written Integrity Management plan (IMP) was inadequate. Specifically,\nPGPipeline’s IMP failed to address submitting notifications to the appropriate agency when\nsignificant modifications are made to the Integrity Management program.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed PGPipeline’s Pipeline Integrity\nManagement Plan, updated June 15, 2013. The plan did not include notification provisions in\naccordance with § 192.909(b).\n7. § 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion Direct Assessment\n(ECDA)?\n(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to assess the\nthreat of external corrosion must follow the requirements in this section, in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 6.4, and in\nNACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7). An operator must develop and\nimplement a direct assessment plan that has procedures addressing pre-assessment,\nindirect inspection, direct examination, and post assessment. If the ECDA detects\npipeline coating damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\nwith other information from the data integration (§192.917(b)) to evaluate the\ncovered segment for the threat of third party damage and to address the threat as\nrequired by §192.917(e)(1).\n…\n(4) Post assessment and continuing evaluation. In addition to the\nrequirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE SP0502, section 6,\nthe plan's procedures for post assessment of the effectiveness of the ECDA\nprocess must include-\n(i) Measures for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of ECDA in\naddressing external corrosion in covered segments; and\n(ii) Criteria for evaluating whether conditions discovered by direct\nexamination of indications in each ECDA region indicate a need for\nreassessment of the covered segment at an interval less than that\nspecified in § 192.939. (See Appendix D of NACE SP0502.)\nPGPipeline’s written External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) procedure was inadequate.\nSpecifically, PGPipeline’s ECDA Procedure failed to include measures for evaluating the long-\nterm effectiveness of ECDA in addressing external corrosion in covered segments and criteria for\ndetermining when conditions discovered by direct examination of indications warrants\nreassessment of the covered segment at intervals less than those specified in § 192.939.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed PGPipeline’s ECDA procedure. The\nprocedure failed to include adequate details regarding the requirements of § 192.925(b)(4).\n8. § 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an operator\ntake?\n(d) Pipelines operating below 30% SMYS. An operator of a transmission pipeline\noperating below 30% SMYS located in a high consequence area must follow the\nrequirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. An operator of a\ntransmission pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in a Class 3 or Class 4 area\nbut not in a high consequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1),\n(d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.\n(1) Apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(iii) of this section to\nthe pipeline; and\n(2) Either monitor excavations near the pipeline, or conduct patrols as required\nby § 192.705 of the pipeline at bi-monthly intervals. If an operator finds any\nindication of unreported construction activity, the operator must conduct a\nfollow up investigation to determine if mechanical damage has occurred.\n(3) Perform semi-annual leak surveys (quarterly for unprotected pipelines or\ncathodically protected pipe where electrical surveys are impractical)\nPGPipeline’s written procedures were inadequate. Specifically, PGPipeline’s written procedures\nfailed to include provisions for implementing preventive and mitigative measures required by\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\n§ 192.935(d) for pipelines operating below 30% SMYS within high consequence areas (HCAs) or\nin Class 3 or 4 areas outside of HCAs.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed PGPipeline’s procedures, including Section\n6 – Maintenance, Inspection & Surveillance of the Operations, Maintenance and Emergency\nManual, updated February 17, 2019, and its Pipeline Integrity Management Plan, updated June 15,\n2013. The procedures failed to address the requirements of § 192.935(d).\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement\nProceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that PGPipeline, LLC maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures) and submit the total to Robert Burrough, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region,\n840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 300, West Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2019-1018M\non each document you submit, and whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic\nformat. Smaller files may be emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on\nUSB flash drive accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nAdditionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response\nletter pertains solely to one CPF case number.\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n120191018M_Notice of Amendment_09262019_text Page 7 of 7\n\n120191018M_Closure Letter_11052019_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nNovember 5, 2019\nMr. Steve Newell\nDirector of Finance\nZeeland Farm Services, Inc.\n2525 84th Ave\nZeeland, MI 49464\nCPF 1-2019-1018M\nDear Mr. Newell:\nFrom January 23, 2019 – July 11, 2019, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, performed\nan integrated inspection of PGPipeline, LLC’s (PGPipeline) pipeline system in Clearfield,\nPennsylvania. PGPipeline is a second-tier subsidiary of Zeeland Farm Services, Inc. As a result of\nthe inspection, PGPipeline was issued a Notice of Amendment on September 26, 2019, which\nproposed amendment of your procedures.\nUtility Safety and Design Incorporated (USDI), on behalf of PGPipeline, submitted amended\nprocedures on October 23, 2019. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that\nthe inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":17778}