# DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

220045009_Final Order_10212004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220045009/220045009_Final%20Order_10212004.pdf

220045009_Final Order_10212004.pdf

(D
U,S.Deportmenl
ol Tronsporlotion
Reieorch ond
Speciol Progrcmi
Adminisfrolion
400 Sevenlh Sl S W
Washrngton. D.C ?0590
}cT 21 2cc.i
Mr. Scott O. Nugent
Vice President & General Manager
Dixie Pipeline Company
Suite West 301
1117 Perimeter Center
Atlanta, Georgia 30338-5423
Re: CPF No. 2-2004-5009
Dear Mr. Nugent:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes a frnding ofviolation and assesses a civil penalty of$25,000. The
penaltypayrnent terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically
upon payrnent. Your receipt ofthe Final Order constitutes service ofthat document under 49 C.F.R.
$ 190,5.
Sincerely,
\h"
r-f*" I "-
Y*.t Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance RegistrY
Office of Pipeline SafetY
Enclosure



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
V/ASHINGTON, DC 20590
In the Matter of
Dixie Pipeline Company,
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CPF No. 2-2004-5009
FINAL ORDER
OtlttlyT-24,,2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, arepresentative ofthe Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records in
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. As a result of the inspection,
the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated Apnl22,2004, a Notice
ofProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207,
the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.a06(a)(3) and proposed
assessing a civil penalty of$25,000 for the alleged violation.
RespondentrespondedtotheNoticebyletterdatedMay25,2004(Response). Respondentcontested
the allegation of violation, offered information to explain the allegation, and requested that the
proposed civil penalty be eliminated or reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore
has waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 1 95.a06(a)(3). This regulation states that
an operator may not operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the maximum operating pressure
(MOP). The Notice alleged that Respondent operated its pipeline at a pressure that exceeded MOP
on December 26, 2002 at its Norwood Station, where the discharge pressure exceeded the
engineeringcalculatedMOPofl,456psifromapproximately2:40p.m.to4:10p.m' Duringthat
time, pressure exceeded 1,460 psi and ranged up to 1 ,480 psi.
In its Response, Respondent admitted that the pressure exceeded MOP as alleged in the Notice'
However, Respondent contended that it committedno violationbecause the pressure never exceeded
1 l0 percent of MOP. Respondent also explained that it had protective equipment in place to ensure
that pressure did not exceed 110 percent of MOP. In support of its contention that it committed no
violation, Respondent cited $ 195.406(b), which states that Respondent may not permlt pressure to
exceed I l0 percent of MOP during surges or other variations from normal operations'



z
Although $ 195.406(b) provides an allowance for excursions above MOP, the allowance only applies
during a surge or other variation from normal operations. In its Response, Respondent did not
contend that the pressure increase that occurred on Decemb er26,2002was a surge or other variation
from normal operations. To the conhary, the record indicates that the increase occurred during
normal operations. The pressure excursion lasted for approximately 1.5 hours. Although
Respondent was aware that pressure had exceeded MOP, Respondent did not take immediate
corrective action to bring the pressure down to MOP. Instead, Respondent allowed the pipeline to
operate above MOP until the excess pressure gradually decreased to MOP. Accordingly, I find
Respondent violated $ 195.406(a)(3) by operating its pipeline at a pressure that exceeded MOP.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of
violations. The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for violation of $ 195.a06(a)(3).
49 U.S.C. S 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, lnd gravity of the violation, degree
of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the
penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's
ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
Inits Response, Respondent requested that theproposed civil penaltybe reduced orwithdrawn based
on Respondent's effort to comply with the pressure safety regulations. Respondent explained that
prior to the event, control pressure had been set to less than MOP and operational shutdown had been
set to prevent pressure from exceeding 110 percent ofthe control pressure. According to
Respondent, operational shutdown was set at 1480 psi, so that pressure would be controlled within
103 percent of MOP. Respondent regarded this limit as "considerably less than the 110% allowed
under 195.406(b).'"
The efforts taken by Respondent were apparently directed at complying with $ 195.406(b), which
requires that Respondent control pipeline pressure within 110 percent of MOP during surges and
other variations from normal operations. Respondent's efforts to comply with $ 195'406(b) bV
limiting pressure to within 103 percent of MOP do not justifu reducing the civil penalty proposed
for violaiing $ 195.406(a)(3), which requires that Respondent operate at or below MOP during
normal operations.
MOP is calculated to ensure that product can be transported through a pipeline system without
causing damaging stress to the integrity of the system. Operating at a pressure above MOP may
increase the stress to a pipeline system and risk the release ofproduct due to pipeline failure'



J
Respondent has had problems with exceeding MOP in the past. During a 2001 inspection, OPS
identified several occasions when pressure had exceeded MOP for several hours at a time.
Respondent was notified of this concem, although no enforcement action was taken. Respondent
took corrective action to address the matterbyrecalculating MOP, and notified OPS of the corrective
action by letter dated June 16, 2001. In the present case, Respondent again allowed its system to
operate above MOP for approximately 1.5 hours. The length of the pressure excursion was due in
part by Respondent's failure to take prompt remedial action to reduce the pressure.
Respondent also requested a reduction in the civil penalty based on the corrective action it has taken
to ensure that a violation would not occur in the future. Respondent explained that it has upgraded
its control equipment at the Norwood Station and added additional mechanisms to avoid future
presswe increases. The upgrade was part of a system-wide program to improve control
instrumentation at Respondent's plrmp stations. Respondent spent approximately $72,600 on
improvements to its instrumentation and control equipment at the Norwood Station. These actions
arecommendable. However,thesemeasuresdonotjustifyreducingthecivilpenalty,asRespondent
is obligated by the pipeline safety regulations to take action necessary to ensure that its system
complies with operating pressure requirements.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent
a total civil penalty of $25,000. A determination has been made that Respondent has the ability to
pay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.
Pa).rynent of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.
$ 89.21(bX3)) require this payment 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 conceming wire transfers should be directed to: Financial
Operations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical
Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $25,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordancewith3l U.S.C. 53717,31C.F.R. $901.9and49C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame
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 Gsneral for appropriate action in a United States District Court.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this
Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final
Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically



4
stays the payrnent of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payment for the
civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the right to petition for
reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.
OcT 2 1 iii,
Date Issued
Administrator
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 10215