# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 220055003
- **title:** ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2005-01-25
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(1), 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(c)(4).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055003.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055003.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055003
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220055003
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195,  195.402(c)(1),  195.402(c)(13),  195.402(c)(4). The case was opened on 2005-01-25 and is reported as closed as of 2005-12-13. Proposed civil penalty: $10,000. Assessed civil penalty: $10,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

220055003_Final Order_12012005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220055003/220055003_Final%20Order_12012005.pdf

CPF No 2-2005-5003 Final Order Enterprise Produts Operating LP.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220055003/CPF%20No%202-2005-5003%20Final%20Order%20Enterprise%20Produts%20Operating%20LP.pdf

CPF No 2-2005-5003 Final Order Enterprise Produts Operating LP.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Mr. Terry Hurlburt
Vice President, Eastern Operations
Enterprise Products Operating, LP
2727 North Loop West
Houston, TX 772 10
RE: CPF NO. 2-2005-5003
Dear Mr. Scott:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $10,000.
The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes
automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document
under 49 C.F.R. 5 190.5.
Sincerely,
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Joel E. Kohler, PE, Manager Pipeline Compliance, Enterprise Products
Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of 1
Enterprise Products Operating, LP,
Respondent.
) I CPF NO. 2-2005-5003
FINAL ORDER
From November 15-18, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 601 17, a representative of the Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southern Region conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of
Respondent's Chunchula pipeline facilities and records in Alabama and Mississippi. As a result of
the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated January
25,2005, a Notice of Probable 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. $195.402
and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $10,000 for the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated February 18, 2005 (Response). Respondent
contested the allegations of violation, offered an explanation to explain the allegations and provided
information concerning the corrective actions it has taken. Respondent also requested that the
proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has
waived the right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R $195.402 (a) and (c)(4), by not
identifying or designating in its manual of written procedures which pipeline facilities are located
in areas that would require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public
if the facilities failed or malhctioned. At the time of the inspection, Respondent did not provide
records to demonstrate compliance but stated that it would respond immediately to failures along the
pipeline.
i This case, however, is no longer before RSPA for decision. Effective February 20,2005, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was created to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline
transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 11 8 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30,2004)). See also, 70
Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18,2005) redelegating the pipeline safety functions to the Administrator, PHMSA.



In Response, Respondent asserted that based upon a recommendation from an OPS Team during an
April 2004 Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M) inspection, it inserted language into its
O&M under "Investigation of Failures" to address the subject of areas for immediate response. In
support of its position, Respondent submitted a copy of its Procedure 5.1 "Investigation of Failures,"
which it argued has been in the manual effective June 2004 and was available before and during the
November 15- 18,2004 OPS inspection. Respondent further asserted that its immediate response
areas are linked to its high consequence areas (HCA) and strip maps, which were and are available
within its pipeline integrity department and local offices.
Although, Respondent argued that the subject compliance language has been in its manual since June
2004 and available before and during the OPS inspection, the OPS inspector was unable to find any
such language in Respondent's O&M manual after a thorough review. Nevertheless, in the interest
of good faith, the OPS inspector gave Respondent three (3) days to research the O&M manual and
show that the subject compliance language was contained within.
AAer three days, Respondent failed to demonstrate that the O&M manual contained any language
that addressed immediate response areas. Respondent also acknowledged during its exit interview
that it had not provided the OPS inspector the O&M language referencing its immediate response
areas. Federal regulations require that Respondent maintain and follow its manual of written
procedures which must include which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an
immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or
malfunctioned. At the time of the inspection, Respondent failed to provide or demonstrate that its
O&M manual contained the requisite compliance language. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 (a)and (c)(4) by failing to include in its manual of written procedures
which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an immediate response by the
operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned.
Item 2 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R 8195.402 (a) and (c)(13), by not
providing records to demonstrate that it periodically reviews the work done by its personnel to
determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and
maintenance.
In Response, Respondent submitted language fiom its O&M procedures that it argued addressed this
requirement. Respondent further argued that the procedures and relevant forms have been used since
its manual review in 2003. Respondent explained that a standard form is used to address each area
of O&M and to document the performance of these reviews. For operations personnel, the
employee's supervisor reviews normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures annually. The results
are documented as Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or Not Applicable. For maintenance personnel, the
employee's supervisor reviews routine maintenance, mechanical troubleshooting, IIE, meter
provinglrepair, corrosion protection, lock-outhag-out, and excavation procedures. The same criteria
are used as with operations to document the results. Respondent further explained that for field
verification of the performance of a task, it utilizes the performance-based evaluations required by
Operator Qualification rule and a part of its Operator Qualification Program. Each person is
qualified to perform a covered task must complete a performance-based evaluation of the elements
of the covered tasks.



A review of the forms submitted by Respondent are clearly labeled "Pipeline Employee Evaluation"
and are used to document the training performance of their employees. The O&M excerpt submitted
by Respondent to demonstrate compliance actually refers to employee training and the annual review
of written procedures by employees and contractors. However, the alleged violation has nothing to
do with training or the performance of the employee.
The requisite review is of the procedures, not the employee. For example, an employee may
complete a procedure in an excellent manner but the procedure itself could be flawed. Conversely,
the employee's performance could be unsatisfactory but the procedure used could be found to be
very effective. Federal regulations require that Respondent periodically review the work done by its
personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used and to take corrective
action where deficiencies are found. The forms submitted by Respondent labeled "Pipeline
Employee Evaluation" failed to demonstrate compliance. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. 8195.402 (a)and (c)(13) by failing to provide records to demonstrate that it
periodically reviews the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of
the procedures used.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 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 $10,000 civil penalty for violations of 49 C.F.R. 8 195.402.
49 U.S.C. 8 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 8 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and 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.
The Notice in Item 1 proposed a civil penalty of $5,000, as Respondent failed to include in its
manual of written procedures designations for which pipeline facilities are located in areas that
would require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities
failed or malfunctioned. Respondent argued that the civil penalty should be eliminated because it
inserted language to address areas for immediate response into its O&M under "Investigation of
Failures" effective June 2004 and that it was available before and during the November 15- 18,2004
OPS inspection.
Along with the Response, Respondent submitted its Procedure 5.1 "Investigation of Failures,"which
it contended referenced its immediate response areas and was in the manual effective June 2004 and
that it was available before and during the November 15-1 8, 2004 OPS inspection. Respondent
argued that it has and continues to achieve compliance with the regulations and seeks elimination
of the proposed civil penalty.



At the time of the inspection, Respondent failed to provide or demonstrate that the requisite
compliance language was in its O&M manual, even after being given an additional three days to do
so. Respondent's submission raised more questions than provided answers. It is interesting that
after the Respondent was given three (3) days to research it's O&M manual Respondent was unable
to show that the subject compliance language was contained therein. Also of interest is the fact that
the records show, during the exit interview, two of Respondent's employees concurred with the
inspector's findings that Respondent had not provided the O&M language. After receipt of the
Notice, Respondent submitted documents which it contended was in the manual at the time of the
inspection. However, the appearance of the submission differs from the photostatic copies taken of
Respondent's O&M manual at the Chunchula, Alabama office during the inspection. The documents
copied during the inspection showed Respondent's logo at the top of each page, a page number at
the bottom center of each page and a date in the lower left of each page. The response submission
does not have Respondent's logo, a page number or a date. Also of interest is the fact that the date
on the photocopies is not June 2004. Even if Respondent changed its O&M manual in June 2004
as it contended, that change was not shown in the O&M manual being use in the field during the
November 15-1 8,2004 OPS inspection.
An objective of the regulation is to assure that operators are prepared to recognize pipeline facilities
located in areas that would require an immediate response to prevent hazards to the public if the
facilities failed or malfunctioned in an expeditious and safe manner. When an operator fails to
include such language in its O&M, the proper procedures and techniques to follow may not be clear
to those responsible for responding to immediate response areas. At the time of the inspection,
Respondent failed to provide or demonstrate that the requisite compliance language was in its O&M
manual. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justifl elimination of the proposed
civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.402(a) and (c)(4).
The Notice in Item 2 proposed a civil penalty of $5,000, as Respondent failed to provide records to
demonstrate that the it periodically reviews the work done by its personnel to determine the
effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and maintenance. In
response, Respondent advised that it has corrected its O&M procedures manual, developed
applicable documents to record the requirement and submitted copies of several completed forms.
Respondent argued that it has and continues to achieve compliance with the regulations and seeks
elimination of the proposed civil penalty.
Federal regulations require that Respondent periodically review the work done by its personnel to
determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and
maintenance. During the exit interview, Respondent's employees acknowledged and concurred with
the inspector's findings that they had not periodically reviewed and documented the work done by
the it's personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operations and
maintenance. In furtherance, Respondent's submission failed to demonstrate compliance.
Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justify elimination of the proposed civil
penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.402(a) and (c)(l3).



Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by
sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to
"U.S. Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), P.O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City,
OK 73125.
Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. $ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to 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 concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the $10,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordance with 3 1 U.S.C. $ 371 7,3 1 C.F.R. $ 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. $89.23. Pursuant to those same
authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not
made within 1 10 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral
of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.
WARNING ITEM
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 3 in the Notice; therefore,
this is considered warning item. Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action to
correct this item, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.
The warning was for -
49 C.F.R. $ 195.402(a) - failing to update the alignment sheets in the Chunchula field
office where operations and maintenance activities are conducted, as the alignment
sheets did not reflect any changes that have occurred on the pipeline since the system
was built in 1979.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to 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 a petition automatically stays the
payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits payment for the civil
penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to Petition for
Reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.
Date Issued
~ w i a t e Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

220055003_Final Order_12012005.pdf

@
U.S. Depodmenf
of Tronsportotion
Plpaline ond
Hozol'dous tltoteriots Sotely
Admlnbtmtlon
.[00 Seventh Slreet. S.W.
Washinglon, D.C. 20590
0s-tm5
Mr. TerryHurlburt
Vice President, Eastem Operations
Enterprise Products Operating, LP
2727 Northloop West
Houston, TX772L0
REr CPF No. 2-2005-5003
Dear Mr. Scott:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $ I 0,000.
The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes
automatically uponpayment. Yourreceipt ofthe Final Order constitutes service ofthat document
under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.
Sincerely,
+".* #'L-
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Mr. Joel E. Kohler, PE, Manager Pipeline Compliance, Enterprise Products
Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southem Region, OPS
CERTIF'IED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
,/lnJm,,,l



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OF'FICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
Enterprise Products Operating, LP,
)
)
) CPF No. 2-2005-5003
_t
F'INAL ORDER
From November 15-18,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, a representative of the Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southern Region conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of
Respondent's Chunchula pipeline facilities and records in Alabama and Mississippi. As a result of
the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated January
25,2005, aNotice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice)r. In accordance with
49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195,402
and proposed assessing a civil penalty of$10,000 for the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated February 18,2005 (Response). Respondent
contested the allegations ofviolation, offered an explanation to explain the allegations and provided
information concerning the corrective actions it has taken. Respondent also requested that the
proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has
waived the right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
rtem I of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R $195.402 (a) and (c)(4), by not
identifring or designating in its manual of written procedures which pipeline facilities are located
in areas that would require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public
if the facilities failed or malfunctioned. At the time of the inspection; Respondent did not provide
records to demonstrate compliance but stated that it would respond immediately to failures along the
pipeline.
'This case, however, is no longer before RSPA for decision. Effective February 20,2005,the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Adminisnation (PHMSA) was created to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline
transportation and hazardous materials tansportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
Speciaf Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, I l8 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70
Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety functions to the Administrator, PHMSA.



o2
In Response, Respondent asserted that based upon a recommendation from an OPS Team during an
April 2004 Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M) inspection, it inserted language into its
O&M under "Investigation of Failures" to address the subject of areas for immediate response. In
support of its position, Respondent submitted a copy ofits Procedure 5. I "Investigation ofFailures,"
which it argued has been in the manual effective June 2004 and was available before and during the
November 15-18, 2004 OPS inspection. Respondent further asserted that its immediate response
areas are linked to its high consequence areas (HCA) and strip maps, which were and are available
within its pipeline integrity department and local offices.
Although, Respondent argued that the subject compliance language has been in its manual since June
2004 and' available before and during the OPS inspection, the OPS inspector was unable to find any
such language in Respondent's O&M manual after a thorough review. Nevertheless, in the interest
of good faith, the OPS inspector gave Respondent three (3) days to research the O&M manual and
show that the subject cornpliance language was contained within.
After three da1a, Respondent failed to demonstrate that the O&M manual contained anylangaage
that addressed immediate response areas. Respondent also acknowledged during its exit interview
that it had not provided the OPS inspector the O&M language referen-ing its immediate response
areas. Federal regulations require that Respondent maintain and follow its manual of written
procedures which must include which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an
immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or
malfunctioned. At the time of the inspection, Respondent failed to provide or demonstrate that its
O&M manual contained the requisite compliance language. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. 5195.402 (a)and (c)(a) by failing to include in its manual of written procedures
which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an immediate response by the
operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned.
rtem 2 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 c.F.R $195.402 (a) and (c)(13), by not
providing records to demonstrate that it periodically reviews the work done by its personnel to
determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and
maintenance.
In Response, Respondent submitted language from its O&M procedures that it argued addressed this
requirement. Respondent further argued that the procedures and relevant forms have been used since
its manual review.in 2003. Respondent explained that a standard form is used to address each area
of O&M and to document the performance of these reviews. For operations personnel, the
ernployee's supervisor reviews normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures annualiy. The results
are documented as Satisfactory Unsatisfactory or Not Applicable. For maintenance personnel, the
employee's superr.isor reviews routine maintenance, mechanical houbleshooting, VE, meter
proving/repair, corrosion protection, lock-out/tag-out, and excavation procedures. The same criteria
are used as with operations to document the results. Respondent fu/Ier explained that ftrr field
verification of the performance of a task, it utilizes the performance-based evaluations required by
Operator Qualification rule and a part of its Operator Qualification Program. Each person is
qualified to perform a covered task must complete a performance-based evaluation of the elements
ofthe covered tasks.



J
A review of the forms submitted by Respondent are clearly labeled "Pipeline Employee Evaluation"
and are used to document the training performance oftheir employees. The O&M exceryt subrnitted
by Respondent to demonstrate compliance actually refers to employee training and the annual review
of written procedures by employees and contractors. However, the alleged violation has nothing to
do with training or the performance of the employee.
The requisite review is of the procedures, not the employee. For example, an employee may
complete a procedure in an excellent manner but the procedure itself could be flawed. Conversely,
the employee's performance could be unsatisfactory but the procedure used could be found to be
very effective. Federal regulations require that Respondent periodically review the worft done by its
personnel to determine the ffictiveness and adequacy ofthe procedures used andtotake corrective
action where deficiencies are found. The forms submitted by Respondent labeled "Pipeline
Employee Evaluation" failed to demonstrate compliance, Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. $195.402 (a)and (c)(13) by failing to provide records to demonstrate that it
periodically reviews the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of
the procedures used.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. S 60L22, 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 $10,000 civil penalty for violations of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.402.
49 U.S.C. $ 60122 utd 49 C.F.R. g 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity ofthe 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.
The Notice in Item I proposed a civil penalty of $5,000, as Respondent failed to include in its
manual of written procedures designations for which pipeline facilities are located in areas that
would require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities
failed or malfunctioned. Respondent argued that the civil penalty should be eliminated because it
inserted language to address areas for immediate response into its O&M under "Investigation of
Failures" effective June 2004 and that itwas available before and durins theNovember 15-18. 2004
OPS inspection.
AlongwiththeResponse,RespondentsubmitteditsProcedure5.l "InvestigationofFailures,"which
it eontended refereneed its inrmediale rcsponsc areas and was in the ma.nual effeetive June 2004 and
that it was available before and during the November 15-18,2004 OPS inspection. Respondent
argued that it has and continues to achieve compliance with the regulations and seeks elimination
ofthe proposed civil penalty.



4
At the time of the inspection, Respondent failed to provide or demonstrate that the requisite
compliance language was in its O&M manual, even after being given an additional three days to do
so. Respondent's submission raised more questions than provided answers. It is interesting that
after the Re spondent was given three (3) days to research it's O&M manual Respondent was unable
to show that the subject compliance language was contained therein. Also of interest is the fact that
the records show, during the exit interview, two of Respondent's employees concurred with the
inspector's findings that Respondent had not provided the O&M language. After receipt of the
Notice, Respondent submitted documents which it contended was in the manual at the time oftJre
inspection, However, the appearance ofthe submission differs from the photostatic copies taken of
Respondent's O&M manual at the Chunchula, Alabama office during the inspection. The documents
copied during the inspection showed Respondent's logo at the top of each page, apage number at
the bottom center ofeach page and a date in the lower left ofeach page. The response submission
does not have Respondent's logo, 'a
page number or a date. Also of interest is the fact that the date
on the photocopies is not June 2004. Even if Respondent changed its O&M manual in June 2004
as it contended, that change was not shown in the O&M manual being use in the field during the
November 1 5-18, 2004 OPS inspection.
An objective ofthe regulation is to assure that operators are prepared to recognize pipeline facilities
located in areas that would require an immediate response to prevent hazards to the public if the
facilities failed or malfirnctioned in an expeditious and safe manner. When an operator fails to
include such language in its O&M, the proper procedures and techniques to follow may not be clear
to those responsible for responding to immediate response areas. At the time of the inspection,
Respondent failed to provide or demonstrate thatthe requisite compliance language was in its O&M
manual. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justiff elimination of the proposed
civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9195.a02(a) and (c)(4).
The Notice in Item 2 proposed a civil penalty of$5,000, as Respondent failed to provide records to
demonstrate that the it periodically reviews the work done by its personnel to determine the
effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and maintenance. In
response, Respondent advised that it has corrected its O&M procedures manual, developed
applicable documents to record the requirement and submitted copies of several completed forms.
Respondent argued that it has and continues to achieve compliance with the regulations and seeks
elimination of the proposed civil penal.ry.
Federal regulations require that Respondent periodically review the work done by its personnel to
determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operations and
maintenance. Duringtheexitinterview,Respondent'semployeesacknowledgedandconcurredwith
the inspector's findings that they had not periodically reviewed and documented the work done by
the it's personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operations and
mailtenance. In furtherance, Respondent's submission failed to demonstrate compliance.
Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justify elimination of the proposed civil
penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9195.a02(a) and (c)(13).



5
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by
sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to
"U.S. Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120),P.O. Box 25770,Oklahoma City,
oK 73125.
Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. $ 89.21(bX3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer,
throughthe Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account ofthe U.S. Treasury.
Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions conceming wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the $10,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordance with 31 u.s.c. s 3717,31 c.F.R. $ 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuant to those same
authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not
made within I 10 days of service. Furthermore, failwe to pay the civil penalty may result in referral
of the matter to the Attomey General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.
WARNING ITEM
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 3 in the Notice; therefore,
this is considered warning item. Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action to
correct this item, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.
The warning was for -
49 C.F.R. $ 195.402(a) - failing to update the alignment sheets in the Chunchula field
offrce where operations and maintenance activities are conducted, as the alignment
sheets did not reflect any changes that have occurred on the pipeline since the system
was built in1979.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt ofthis Final Order and
must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of a petition automatically stays the
payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits payment for the civil
penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to Petition for
Reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions ofthis Final Order are effective upon receipt.
0Fi0 - 1 rnnr
I L\.,VJ
Date Issued
Administrator
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 34075