{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220051006","title":"TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-03-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.317(b), 192.465, 192.491(c), 192.625(b), 192.706(a), 192.707(a)(2), 192.709(c), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220051006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.317(b),  192.465,  192.491(c),  192.625(b),  192.706(a),  192.707(a)(2),  192.709(c),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2005-03-08 and is reported as closed as of 2005-09-26. Proposed civil penalty: $15,000. Assessed civil penalty: $10,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220051006_Final Order_08312005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051006/220051006_Final%20Order_08312005.pdf\n\ncpf_220051006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051006/cpf_220051006.pdf\n\n220051006_Final Order_08312005.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAUG 3 1 2005\nMr. R. Alan Englehart\nVice President, Engineering Operations\nTexas Gas Transmissions, LLC\nP.O. Box 20008\nOwensboro, KY 42301\nRE: CPF No. 2-2005-1006\nDear Mr. Englehart:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $10,000. I\nacknowledge receipt of Texas Gas Transmission's, payment dated April 6, 2005, in the amount of\n$5,000 as payment for the civil penalty assessed for Item 3. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment of the balance of the total civil penalty. Your receipt of the Final Order\nSincerely,\ndamM\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc:\nMr. Jeffrey B. McMaine, Manager, Pipeline Safety and Integrity, Texas Gas\nMs. Linda Daugherty, Director, OPS Southern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n43 Scarsued\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOF'FICE OF PIPELINE SAFTTY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nTEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION. LLC,\nRespondent.\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPFNo. 2-2005-1006\nF'INAL ORDER\nBetween May 3 and July l,2}}4,,pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), Southem, conducted an inspection an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nRespondent, facilities and records in Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. As a result\nof the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated March\n8, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of\n49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $15,000 for the alleged violation.\nRespondentrespondedtotheNoticebyletterdatedApril 6,2005 (Response). Respondentcontested\none of the allegations of violation, offered information to explain the allegations and provided\ninformation conleming the corrective actions it has taken. Respondent also paid the proposed civil\npenalty for Item 3 of the Notice and requested mitigation of the proposed civil penalty for Item 4 of\nih. Xoti... Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived the right to one'\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nUncontested\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violation of $192.a91(c), in Item 3 of the Notice'\nAccordingly, I frnd that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 192, as more fuily described in the\nNotice:\n49 C.F.R.$192.491(c)_ failureto maintain arecord of eachtest, survey, or inspection\nrequired by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy ofcorrosion\ncontrol measures oirhar a corrosive condition docs not exist, as Respcndent did not\nhave records fbr the 2001 and2002 annual surveys for the subject tests on the wGB\nline.\n\n\n\nz\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nContested\nItem 4 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $192.625(b) by having two (2)\nsections of pipeline in Class 3 locations which did not contain an odor or an odorant in\nJeffersontown, Kentucky. At the time ofthe inspection, Respondent's Jeffersontown 8\" tie-over line\nand the Main Line System (MLS) 26\" No. 2 line which are in Class 3 locations were not odorized.\n[r its response, Respondent advised that the history of the line and its history of inspections makes\na finding ofviolation inappropriate. The in-service date for the Jeffersontown 8\" tie-over line was\n1962. The area flom Jeffe.rsontown Station to Ellingsworth I-ane became Class 3 on three different\ndates. Approxrmately 0.27 mile was classified as Class 3 in 1971; an additional mile became Class\n3 in 1973; and the entire segment became Class 3 in 1 984. The portion of the MLS 26\" No.2 line\nin question was segmented in 1981. The facility was inspected twice during the 1980's by the\nKentucky Public Service Commission and three times since 1 993 by OPS. Respondent argued that\nbecause the inspections by the Kentucky Public Service Commission and OPS revealed no\nviolations, a finding ofviolation is inappropriate.\nRespondent pointed to the previous inspections to demonstrate that the alleged violation was not\nobvious to either it or previous inspectors. Respondent argued that the safety concems resulting\nfrom the failure to odorize the lines was off-set by other safety precautions undertaken by\nRespondent over the years. Respondent advised it has continuously provided monitoring of the two\nunodorized lines, beyond that required by regulations, by daily flying over the lines to ensure that\nno disturbance or abnormalities ofthe lines had occurred. Respondent also advised that it enjoys a\nclose working relationship with its customer, Louisville Gas and Electric, so that information about\nencroachments or any other pipeline issues are readily communicated. Respondent contended that\nthe location of the MLS 26-inch No. 2, in the middle of the right-of-way between two transmission\nlines, made the unodorized line less prone to third party damage. Respondent advised that there has\nbeen no history ofany safety related incidents on the subject lines.\nRespondent's statement is correct that there is no history of any safety related incidents on its\nJeffersontown 8\" tie-over line and the Main Line System (MLS) 26\" No. 2 lines. Nevertheless, the\nrequirement to complywith 49 C.F.R. $ 192.625(b) should have been recog-nized bythe Respondent\nwhen it performed the required class location study and the area became a Class 3 area in 1984.\nRespondent acknowledged that the absence of any notation of odorization during previous\ninspections does not equal compliance. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R'\n9192.625 (b) (1) and (3), as Respondent failed to odorize its Jeffersontown 8\" tie-over line and the\nllain Line System (};ILS) 25\" I.lo. 2 line ,vhich are in Class 3 locations.\n\n\n\nASSESSMENT OFPENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 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, 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. The Notice proposed\na total civil penalty of $15,000 for violation of 49 CFR Part 192.\nThe Notice proposed for Item 3 a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.$192.491(c), as\nRespondent failed to maintain a record of its 2001 and2002 annual surveys for the subject tests on\nits WGB line. Federal regulations require that each operator maintain a record of each test, suwey,\nor inspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion\ncontrol measures or that a corrosive condition does not exist. Respondent did not contest the\nviolation or the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, already paid by the Respondent.\nThe Notice proposed for Item 4 a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. $192.625(b),\nas Respondent failed to odorize two (2) sections ofpipeline in Class 3 locations, the Jeffersontown\n8\" tie-over line and the MLS 26\" No. 2 line. Respondent conceded that the lines were not odorized\nbut argued that the safety concerns resulting from the failure to odorize the lines was off-set by other\nsafetyprecautionsundertakenwhichextendbeyondthoserequiredbytheregulations. OPSapplauds\nthe Respondent's efforts and trusts that Respondent will continue those safety precautions.\nRespondent has taken proactive safety measures to show its good faith in pursuing and maintaining\ncompliance. In fact, Respondent is in the process of abandoning in place the Jeffersontown MLS\n26\"No.2line. TheJeffersontown8\"tie-overlinewillbeconnectedtotheMLS36-inchNo.2; thus,\nlooping the MLS 36-inch No. 2. Abandoning the MLS 26-inch No. 2 and looping the MLS 36-inch\nNo. 2 with the 8-inch tie-over line will alleviate the need for gas odoization. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record, considered Respondent's compliance history and the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nWARNING ITEM\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 1,2, 5,6, 7, and 8 but\nwamed Respondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items. Respondent\n\n\n\n4\npresented infomation in its response showing that it has addressed the cited items. Respondent is\nagain warned that if OPS finds a violation in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be\ntaken.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nAUG 3 I 2{){i5\nDate Issued\n( vY1","truncated":false,"body_characters":10106}