{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220045011","title":"PRODUCTS (SE) PIPE LINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-04-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.403(b)(1), 195.416, 195.420(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220045011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PRODUCTS (SE) PIPE LINE CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.403(b)(1),  195.416,  195.420(b). The case was opened on 2004-04-23 and is reported as closed as of 2009-01-06. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $5,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220045011_FinalOrder_01062009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220045011/220045011_FinalOrder_01062009.pdf\n\n220045011_FinalOrder_01062009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220045011/220045011_FinalOrder_01062009_text.pdf\n\n220045011_FinalOrder_01062009_text.pdf\n\nMr. Ronald P. McClain\nVice President, Operations\nPlantation Pipe Line Company\n1100 Alderman Drive, Suite 200\nAlpharetta, Georgia 30005\nRE: CPF No. 2-2004-5011\nDear Mr. McClain:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nin the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$5,000. I acknowledge receipt of Plantation’s payment of $5,000 in satisfaction of the civil\npenalty assessed in the Final Order. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order\nconstitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\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 )\nPlantation Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 2-2004-5011\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween April and June 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Research\nand Special Programs Administration (RSPA)1, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an\non-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plantation Pipe Line Company\n(Plantation or Respondent) in its Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,\nSouth Carolina, and Tennessee operating areas. Plantation, now owned by Kinder Morgan\nEnergy Partners and ExxonMobil Corporation, operates a 3,100-mile refined petroleum products\npipeline from Louisiana to Washington, D.C. As a result of the inspection, the Director,\nSouthern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated April 23, 2004, a Notice\nof Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. §\n190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed certain violations of 49\nC.F.R. Part 195 and assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed finding that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49\nC.F.R. Part 195 and warning Respondent to take appropriate corrective actions to address them\nor be subject to future enforcement action.\nPlantation responded to the Notice by letter dated May 26, 2004 (Response). It did not contest\nthe charge giving rise to the civil penalty and sent a wire transfer in the amount of $5,000. In its\nResponse, Plantation provided information regarding the various allegations and the corrective\n1Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was\ncreated to ensure safety in pipeline and hazardous materials transportation. See, Section 108 of the Norman Y.\nMineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30,\n2004)). See also, 70 Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005), redelegating the pipeline safety functions of the Research\nand Special Programs Administration to PHMSA.\n\n\n\n2\nactions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to\none.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.209(a)(1) and 190.213, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.416 (c), which states:\n§ 195.416 External corrosion control.\n(a) ….\n(c) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 2½ months,\nbut at least six times each calendar year, inspect each of its cathodic\nprotection rectifiers.2\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent did not take any readings for rectifier MD-01, located at the\neast end of the Baton Rouge Division office, from January 26, 2001 to July 24, 2001. The\ninterval between the readings was 5 months and 29 days.\nIn its Response, Plantation did not contest the violation but contended that the missed reading\nwas an isolated event out of more than 290 rectifier readings on its system. This may or may not\nbe true, but Respondent is still obligated under § 195.416(c) to check all rectifiers at intervals not\nexceeding two-and-one-half months. The regulation does not permit de minimus exceptions. At\nthe inspection, Respondent acknowledged that the rectifier was inoperable. Accordingly, having\nconsidered all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.416(c) by failing\nto take readings for rectifier MD-01 within the required inspection interval.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 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.\n49 U.S.C. § 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, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; degree of Respondent's culpability, the history of\nRespondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, and any effect that the\npenalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in\n2 At the time of the inspection in 2001, 49 C.F.R. § 195.416(c) set forth the applicable requirements for\nexternal corrosion control. This section was superseded by the adoption of 49 C.F.R. §195.573(c), which became\neffective January 28, 2002. See, Controlling Corrosion on Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines, 66 Fed.\nReg. 67004 (Dec. 27, 2001) (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c)).\n\n\n\n3\nattempting to comply with pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic\nbenefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and\nsuch other matters as justice may require.\nItem 1 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.416(c), regarding Plantation’s failure to take readings for rectifier MD-01, located at the\neast end of the Baton Rouge Division office, from January 26, 2001 to July 24, 2001. Regular\ninspections of rectifiers are an essential component of an operator’s pipeline safety program.\nFailure to properly monitor cathodic protection rectifiers can result in inadequate protection of\nthe pipe, resulting in leaks and an increased risk of harm to life, property and the environment.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,000, which Respondent has already remitted to PHMSA.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b)(1) (Notice Item 2) ─ Plantation’s alleged failure to\nreview, within the required interval, the performance of several employees in\naccordance with the company’s emergency response training program; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Notice Item 3) ─ Plantation’s alleged failure to inspect,\nwithin the required interval, each mainline valve to determine that it was\nfunctioning properly.\nPlantation presented information in its Response indicating that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited warning items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b)(1) (Notice Item 2) and 49\nC.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Notice Item 3) occurred as of the date of the inspection. Plantation is\nhereby advised to review and correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation for\nany of these items in a subsequent inspection, Plantation may be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8902}