{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220051002","title":"DESTIN PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-01-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.463(a), 192.605, 192.705(a), 192.706, 192.736(a)(2), 192.739, 192.745(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220051002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DESTIN PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.463(a),  192.605,  192.705(a),  192.706,  192.736(a)(2),  192.739,  192.745(b). The case was opened on 2005-01-06 and is reported as closed as of 2006-05-10. Proposed civil penalty: $45,250. Assessed civil penalty: $38,250. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220051002_Final Order_12092005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051002/220051002_Final%20Order_12092005.pdf\n\n220051002_Final Order_12092005.pdf\n\n@\nU.S. Deportmenl\nof Tronsportotion\nPlpellne qnd\nHozoldous moteriols sofety\nAdmlnlrlrqtlon DEC - I m05\n400 Seventh Street. S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Jim Lamanna\nBP Pipelines (North America), Inc.\n2800 Torch Parkway\nWarrenville,IL 60555\nDear Mr. Lamanna:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalfy of $3 8,250.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Your receipt ofthe Final Order constitutes service of that document\nunder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\n\\ / (f* / w-*\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Gerald E Schau. HSSE & Integrity Manager, BP Pipelines (North America). Inc.\nMs. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southem Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND IIAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAT'ETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\n)\n)\nBP Pipelines (North America), Inc.,\nDestin Pipelines\n) CPr No. 2-2005-1002\n) _J\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 25'28,z}}4,pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, a representative of the Office of pipeline\nSafety (OPS), Southem Region conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Destin Pipeline\nCompany facilities and records in Mississippi, operated by BP Pipelines (North America), Inc.. As\na result ofthe inspection, the Director, Southem Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated\nJanuary6,2005,aNoticeofProbableViolationandProposedCivilPenalty(Notice)t. Inaccordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. $190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R.\nPurtlgz and proposed assessing a civil penalty of$45,250 for the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated January 15, 2005(Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations ofviolation, but offered an explanation to explain the allegations and\nprovided information concerning the conective actions it has taken. Respondent also requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has\nwaived the right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n(Uncontested)\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the alleged violations in the Notice. Accordingly, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 c.F.R. Partl92, as more fully described in the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. $ 192.705(a)- failure to have a patrol program to observe surface\nconditions on and adjacent to the kansmission line right-of-way for indications of\nleaks, construction activity, and other factors afrecting safety and operation, as\nRespondent's 2002 and 2003 Aerial Leak and Right-of-way Reports were missing\nor incomolete.\nlThis cas\", however, is no longer before RSPA for decision. Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was created to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline\ntransportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 ofthe Norman Y. Mineta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 1 l8 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70\nFed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety functions to the Administraror, PHMSA.\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. $ 192.706(a) and (b)- failure to provide records to veriflr that leakage\nsurveys were conducted at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year. Respondent did not provide the 2002 records for its Class 1\nand Class 2 locations or its Class 3 highway and railroad crossings for the first\nhalf of 2003 and2002, and some of the leakage survey work orders (Maximo)\nwere incomplete.\n49 C,F.R. $ 192.739(a) (1-4) - failure to test and inspect once each calendar year,\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, each pressure limiting station, relief device\n(except rupture discs), and pressure regulating station and its equipment.\nRespondent failed to provide records to verifu that the pressure transmitters on the\ndischarge headers at the Pascagoula Compressor Station(CS) were inspected in\n2C02 and 2003 and the Sandhill CS in 2002, 2003 and 2004. These transmitters\nare the primary over pressure protection sensors for the pipeline.\n49 C.F.R. $ 192.739(a) (l-4) - failure to test and inspect once each calendar year,\nat intervals not exceeding l5 months, each pressure limiting station, relief device\n(except rupture discs), and pressure regulating station and its equipment.\nRespondent failed to provide inspection records for the Plant Daniel in 2002 and\n2003.\n49 C.F.R. $ 192.745(a) and (b) - failure to show that each transmission line valve\nthat might be required during any emergency was inspected and partially operated\nat intervals not exceeding fifteen months, but at least once each calendar year.\nRespondent's valve list was inconsistent from 2002to 2003 to 2N4. Tlre\ninconsistencyresulted in fourteen (14) missed inspections in 2003 and twenty-one\n(21) in 2004. Respondent also had incomplete and insufficient records to\ndemonstrate the completion of sixty (60) valve inspections in 2003 and thirteen\n(13) in 2004.\nThese findings ofviolation will be considered prior offenses 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 total civil penalty of $45,250 for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 1 92.\n49 U'S.C. S 6ll22and 49 C.F.R. $ 1g0.225require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity ofthe 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.\n\n\n\nJ\nThe Notice in Item I proposed a civil penalty of$7,500, as Respondent failed to have a patrol\nprogram to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line rlght-of-*iy io.\nindications ofleaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. At the\ntime of the inspection, Respondent's zooz and,2003 Aerial reak an\"tl Right-of-way Reports were\nmissing or incomplete.\nIn its response, Respondent stated that its aerial patrol procedures were amended on January 5, 2004\nand, submitted a copy of its new procedures. Respondent contended that the civil penalty should be\nmitigated because the proceduris address the issue in Itern I of the Notice and demonstrate the\ncorrective measures taken.\nThe aerial patrol violations alleged in the Notice stem from occrurences in 2002and 2003.\nRespondent's procedures were not amended until January 5,2004. ops was made aware of\nRespondent'sprocedures during an inspection andnoted the improvements inpatrol reports in2004.\nPatrolling reduces the risk ofdamage toproperty, peruons and thi environment. without the required\ndocumentation an operator carurot adequately demonstrate that it patrolled its pipelines to observe\nsurface conditions on and a-djacent to the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks,\nconstruction activity, and other factors affecting safety and opeiation. wi'thout this history of patrol\nrecords, an operator will have difficulfly detenn'ining areas wirere there are problems that need to be\naddressed' Respondent's amended procedures fail Io demonstrat\" fro-pt corrective measures for\nthe2002 and2003 deficiencies and fail to justifumitigation ofthe civil p\"*rty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$7,500, for violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.705(a).\nThe Notice in rtem 2 proposed a civil penalty of $10,000, as Respondent failed to provide records\nto demonstrate that leakage surveys were conducted at intervals noi exceeding I 5 months, but at least\nonce.each calendar year. Respondent did not provide the 2002records for its class 1 and class 2\nlocations or its Class 3 highway and railroad crirsing* for the first half of2003 and,2002,and some\nof the leakage survey work orders (Maximo) were incomplete.\nIn itsresponse' Respondent advised that the class 1 and class 2leakagesurveys for 2003 were\ncompleted hard copy, and filed at the sand Hill facility instead of pascagoulq MS office. Therefore,\nthe records were not available for review.\nFirst' the Notice alleges violations for class 3 locations in 2003. The allegation of violation is\nunrelated to class 1 *9 9?t: 2 l^earlage surveys for 2003, as stated in Respondent,s response.\nSecond, the allegation ofviolation for itstlass t ana class z locations were in 2002 and not in 2003,\nas Respondent's response suggested. Therefore, Respondent,s response to ltem 2 ofthe Notice does\nnot address issue' Respondent has not providei any evidence that would justity elimination of the\nproposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and cJnsidered the assessment\ncriteria, IassessRespondentaciviipenaltyo-f$l0,000,forviolationof49c.F.R. srgz.706(a)and\n(b).\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice in Item 3 proposed a civil penalty of $14,000, as Respondent failed to provide records\nto verifu that the pressure transmitters on the discharge headers at the Pascagoula and the Sandhill\ncompressor stations were inspectedin2002 and 2003. These transmitters are the primary over\npressure protection sensors for the pipelines.\nAlong with its response, Respondent submitted documentation demonstrating that the two pressure\ntransmitters for the Pascagoula Compressor Station (CS) were inspected in April 2004. Respondent\nalso submitted documentation that two pressure transmitters for the Sandhill CS were inspected in\nJanuary 2005.\nAlthough Respondent's submission addressed the2004 inspection at the Pascagoula CS, it failed to\nprovide records to demonstrate that it inspected the Pascagoula CS in 2002 and 2003. Respondent\nalso failed to prcvide records to show the Sandhill CS was inspected in2002,2003 and 2004. It is\nunciear why Respondent submitted January 2005 inspection records, which was not included in the\nNotice. The primary objective of the Federal pipeline safety standards is safe operation of pipeline\nsystems. Failure to conduct inspections at the specified intervals to find and to correct any\ndeficiencies could adversely affect public safety. Based upon the documentation submitted by\nRespondent demonstrating thatthe two pressure hansmitters forthe Pascagoula Compressor Station\n(CS) were inspected in April 2004, it is determined that the proposed civil penalty is reduced\nproportionately from $ 14,000 to $ 1 0,000. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $ 10,000 for failure to demonstrate that\nit inspected the Pascagoula CS in 2002 and 2003 and the Sandhill CS in 2002, 2003 and 2004, as\nrequired by 49 C.F.R. $192.739 (a).\nThe Notice in Item 4 proposed a civil penalty of$5,000, as Respondent failed to provide records to\ndemonstrate that it inspected its Gulf South Interchange in 2002, Trursco Interchange in 2002,\nTennessee Gas Interchan ge in2002 and Plant Daniel in 2002 and 2003, as required by 49 C.F.R. $\nte2.73e(a) Q-\\.\nRespondent did not contest the allegations ofviolation, but offered an explanation to explain the\nallegations and provided information. Along with the Response, Respondent submitted regulator\nstation inspection records for the Plant Daniel Interchange in2004, which are not at issue. The\nviolation applied to the 2002 and 2003 inspection records for the Plant Daniel Interchange.\nRespondent also submitted records to show inspections for the Gulf South (Kuch) and Tennessee\nGas Interchange in 2002, and Williams' station 80 in 2002. Respondent contended that the\nWilliams' records affirm the Transco Interchange inspection for 2002. Based upon the\ndocumentation submitted, it is determined that Respondent inspected the Gulf South, Transco and\nTennessee Gas Interchanges in 2002, it is determined that the proposed civil penalty is reduced\nproportionately from $5,000 to $2,000. The primary objective of the Federal pipeline safety\nstandards is safe operation of pipeline systems. Failure to conduct inspections at the specified\nintervals to find and to correct any deficiencies could adversely affect public safety. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $2,000 for failure to provide records to demonstrate that it inspected the Plant Daniel in\n2002 and2003, as required by 49 C.F.R, 5192.739(a) 0-D.\n\n\n\n5\nThe Notice in ltem 5 proposed a civil penalty of $8,750, as Respondent failed to show that each\ntransmission line valve that might be required during any emergency was inspected and partially\noperated at intervals not exceeding fifteen months, but at least once each calendar year.\nRespondent's valve list was inconsistent from 2002to 2003 to 2004, which included fourteen (14)\nmissed inspections in 2003 and twenty-one Ql) in 2004. Respondent also had incomplete and\ninsufficient (Maximo) records to demonstrate the inspection of sixty (60) valves in 2003 and thirteen\n(13) valves in2004.\nIn its response, Respondent posed that its Maximo records are pennanently archived upon closure\nand historical changes cannot be made to the status. Respondent explained that 8 ofthe fourteen\n(14) missing valve inspections in 2003 had incorrect job plans in it's Maximo work orders and that\nthese work orders were conected by September 1,2004. Respondent further explained that the\nremaining 6 missing valve inspections for 2003 w-ere corrected as of January 19, 2005.\nAlthough Respondent stated that factors whichresulted in 8 missing valve inspections for 2003 were\ncorrect by September 1,2004, Respondent failed to explain why this information was not provided\nat the time of the inspection in late October 2004. Respondent also failed to provide a sufficient\nexplanation for the 2l missing valve inspections in 2004. The failure to complete inspections and\ntests of valves that may be required during an emergency could lead to valve failure and the inability\nto shut-in the pipeline should a failure occur. This could result in harm to people and/or property\nalong right-of-way. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justifr elimination or\nreduction ofthe proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $8,750, for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n$192.745(a) and (b).\nAccordingly, having reviewedtherecord and consideredthe assessment criteria,I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $3 8,250. A determination has been made that Respondent has the ability to\npay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. S 89.21(bX3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. After completing the wire transfer, send a copy ofthe\nelectronic funds transfer receipt to the Office of the Chief Counsel (DCC-I), Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Administration, Room 8417, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 400 Seventh\nStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001.\nQuestions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-\n120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082,\nOklahorna City, OK 73125'. (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $38,250 civil penalty will result in accrual ofinterest at the current annual rate in\naccordancewith3lU,S.C.S37l7,31C.F.R.'901.9and49C,F.R.S89.23. Pursuanttothosesame\n\n\n\n6\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within I l0 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.\nWARNING ITEM\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 6, 7, and 8 in the Notice;\ntherefore, these are considered waming item. Respondent is wamed that if it does not take\nappropriate action to correct these items, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection\nreveals a violation.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder. The petitioir must be received within 20 days of RespcnCent's receipt of this Final Order and\nmust contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of a petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits pal.rnent for the civil\npenalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to Petition for\nideration is waived. The terms and conditions ofthis Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nDEC - I mos\nb\nq^for Pipeline Safety\nAdministrator\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":18064}