{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220045009","title":"DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-04-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.406(a)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220045009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195,  195.406(a)(3). The case was opened on 2004-04-22 and is reported as closed as of 2005-08-12. Proposed civil penalty: $25,000. Assessed civil penalty: $25,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220045009_Final Order_10212004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220045009/220045009_Final%20Order_10212004.pdf\n\n220045009_Final Order_10212004.pdf\n\n(D\nU,S.Deportmenl\nol Tronsporlotion\nReieorch ond\nSpeciol Progrcmi\nAdminisfrolion\n400 Sevenlh Sl S W\nWashrngton. D.C ?0590\n}cT 21 2cc.i\nMr. Scott O. Nugent\nVice President & General Manager\nDixie Pipeline Company\nSuite West 301\n1117 Perimeter Center\nAtlanta, Georgia 30338-5423\nRe: CPF No. 2-2004-5009\nDear Mr. Nugent:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes a frnding ofviolation and assesses a civil penalty of$25,000. The\npenaltypayrnent terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payrnent. Your receipt ofthe Final Order constitutes service ofthat document under 49 C.F.R.\n$ 190,5.\nSincerely,\n\\h\"\nr-f*\" I \"-\nY*.t Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance RegistrY\nOffice of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nV/ASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nDixie Pipeline Company,\nRespondent\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 2-2004-5009\nFINAL ORDER\nOtlttlyT-24,,2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, arepresentative ofthe Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records in\nAlabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. As a result of the inspection,\nthe Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated Apnl22,2004, a Notice\nofProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207,\nthe Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.a06(a)(3) and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of$25,000 for the alleged violation.\nRespondentrespondedtotheNoticebyletterdatedMay25,2004(Response). Respondentcontested\nthe allegation of violation, offered information to explain the allegation, and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be eliminated or reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 1 95.a06(a)(3). This regulation states that\nan operator may not operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the maximum operating pressure\n(MOP). The Notice alleged that Respondent operated its pipeline at a pressure that exceeded MOP\non December 26, 2002 at its Norwood Station, where the discharge pressure exceeded the\nengineeringcalculatedMOPofl,456psifromapproximately2:40p.m.to4:10p.m' Duringthat\ntime, pressure exceeded 1,460 psi and ranged up to 1 ,480 psi.\nIn its Response, Respondent admitted that the pressure exceeded MOP as alleged in the Notice'\nHowever, Respondent contended that it committedno violationbecause the pressure never exceeded\n1 l0 percent of MOP. Respondent also explained that it had protective equipment in place to ensure\nthat pressure did not exceed 110 percent of MOP. In support of its contention that it committed no\nviolation, Respondent cited $ 195.406(b), which states that Respondent may not permlt pressure to\nexceed I l0 percent of MOP during surges or other variations from normal operations'\n\n\n\nz\nAlthough $ 195.406(b) provides an allowance for excursions above MOP, the allowance only applies\nduring a surge or other variation from normal operations. In its Response, Respondent did not\ncontend that the pressure increase that occurred on Decemb er26,2002was a surge or other variation\nfrom normal operations. To the conhary, the record indicates that the increase occurred during\nnormal operations. The pressure excursion lasted for approximately 1.5 hours. Although\nRespondent was aware that pressure had exceeded MOP, Respondent did not take immediate\ncorrective action to bring the pressure down to MOP. Instead, Respondent allowed the pipeline to\noperate above MOP until the excess pressure gradually decreased to MOP. Accordingly, I find\nRespondent violated $ 195.406(a)(3) by operating its pipeline at a pressure that exceeded MOP.\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. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 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 civil penalty of $25,000 for violation of $ 195.a06(a)(3).\n49 U.S.C. S 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, lnd gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nInits Response, Respondent requested that theproposed civil penaltybe reduced orwithdrawn based\non Respondent's effort to comply with the pressure safety regulations. Respondent explained that\nprior to the event, control pressure had been set to less than MOP and operational shutdown had been\nset to prevent pressure from exceeding 110 percent ofthe control pressure. According to\nRespondent, operational shutdown was set at 1480 psi, so that pressure would be controlled within\n103 percent of MOP. Respondent regarded this limit as \"considerably less than the 110% allowed\nunder 195.406(b).'\"\nThe efforts taken by Respondent were apparently directed at complying with $ 195.406(b), which\nrequires that Respondent control pipeline pressure within 110 percent of MOP during surges and\nother variations from normal operations. Respondent's efforts to comply with $ 195'406(b) bV\nlimiting pressure to within 103 percent of MOP do not justifu reducing the civil penalty proposed\nfor violaiing $ 195.406(a)(3), which requires that Respondent operate at or below MOP during\nnormal operations.\nMOP is calculated to ensure that product can be transported through a pipeline system without\ncausing damaging stress to the integrity of the system. Operating at a pressure above MOP may\nincrease the stress to a pipeline system and risk the release ofproduct due to pipeline failure'\n\n\n\nJ\nRespondent has had problems with exceeding MOP in the past. During a 2001 inspection, OPS\nidentified several occasions when pressure had exceeded MOP for several hours at a time.\nRespondent was notified of this concem, although no enforcement action was taken. Respondent\ntook corrective action to address the matterbyrecalculating MOP, and notified OPS of the corrective\naction by letter dated June 16, 2001. In the present case, Respondent again allowed its system to\noperate above MOP for approximately 1.5 hours. The length of the pressure excursion was due in\npart by Respondent's failure to take prompt remedial action to reduce the pressure.\nRespondent also requested a reduction in the civil penalty based on the corrective action it has taken\nto ensure that a violation would not occur in the future. Respondent explained that it has upgraded\nits control equipment at the Norwood Station and added additional mechanisms to avoid future\npresswe increases. The upgrade was part of a system-wide program to improve control\ninstrumentation at Respondent's plrmp stations. Respondent spent approximately $72,600 on\nimprovements to its instrumentation and control equipment at the Norwood Station. These actions\narecommendable. However,thesemeasuresdonotjustifyreducingthecivilpenalty,asRespondent\nis obligated by the pipeline safety regulations to take action necessary to ensure that its system\ncomplies with operating pressure requirements.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $25,000. A determination has been made that Respondent has the ability to\npay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nPa).rynent of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n$ 89.21(bX3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions conceming wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $25,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordancewith3l U.S.C. 53717,31C.F.R. $901.9and49C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney Gsneral for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\n\n\n\n4\nstays the payrnent of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payment for the\ncivil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nOcT 2 1 iii,\nDate Issued\nAdministrator","truncated":false,"body_characters":10215}