{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220055013","title":"TE PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-09-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(4), 195.403(b)(2), 195.403(c), 195.410(a), 195.412(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220055013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TE PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195,  195.402(c)(4),  195.403(b)(2),  195.403(c),  195.410(a),  195.412(a). The case was opened on 2005-09-15 and is reported as closed as of 2006-04-28. Proposed civil penalty: $35,000. Assessed civil penalty: $35,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220055013_Final Order_04132006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220055013/220055013_Final%20Order_04132006.pdf\n\n220055013_Final Order_04132006.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nAPR 1 3 2006\nMr. Leonard W. Mallet\nVice President of Operations\nTexas Eastern Pipeline Products Company\n2929 Allen Parkway\nHouston, TX 77252\nRE: CPF NO. 2-2005-501 3\nDear Mr. Mallet:\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 $35,000.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document\nunder 49 C.F.R. tj 190.5.\nSincerely,\ncc: James Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nJames E. Mike, Manager Regulatory Compliance, TEPPCO\nMs. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nEnclosure\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL (RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) AND TELECOPY\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTexas Eastern Pipeline Products Company,\nRespondents.\n)\n)\n) CPF No. 2-2005-5013\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 4-8,2002, September 27-30,2004, and October 4-8,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. tj\n601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nconducted an inspection of Respondent's facilities and records in Baytown, Texas, and Seymour,\nIndiana. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated September 15,2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $35,000 for the alleged\nviolations.\nIn a letter dated October 17, 2005, Respondent submitted a Response to the Notice. Respondent\ncontested one of the alleged violations, offered an explanation and requested withdrawal or reduction\nof the proposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore, has waived the\nright to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS\nUncontested\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. $9 195.403(c) and 195.410 in the\nNotice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as more fully described\nin the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. §195.403(c) -failure to maintain records to demonstrate and verify the\nsupervisors' knowledge of emergency response procedures, in accordance with\ntj 195.402.\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.4 10 -failure to place and maintain pipeline markers over each buried\npipeline. Respondent's P-74 line east of mile post 38 1 was improperly marked and\npine trees have been planted on top of where the line locator showed the P-74 line to\nbe buried. Respondent's P-3 1 line southwest of mile post 106, and its P-2 and P-62\nlines north of the Ouachita River were not sufficiently marked to accurately locate\nthe pipelines in many areas along the right-of-way.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $195.402(a) and (c) (4), as\nRespondent had not designated which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require\nimmediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or\nmalfunctioned. This regulation provides safety precautions that minimize the risk of injury to human\nlife, the environment, and property during an emergency.\nAlong with its Response, Respondent submitted a section of its Operating and Maintenance (O&M)\nmanual entitled Procedure E-405-IdentiJjling Locations Requiring Immediate Response. Respondent\nadvised that its O&M states, \"All pipeline systems, regardless of location, are in areas that would\nrequire an immediate response to prevent hazards in the public and the environment if the system\nfailed or malfunctioned.\" Respondent further advised that the Emergency Plan section of its O&M\nmanual states, \"It shall be the policy of TEPPCO to treat the failure or malfunction of any of its\nfacilities as a potential hazard to the public and respond immediately.\" Respondent contended that\nits submission shows its compliance with federal regulations and requested withdrawal of the\nproposed civil penalty.\nRespondent submitted a portion of its O&M manual and Emergency Plan as evidence that it\ndesignated all of its pipeline systems as requiring an immediate response by TEPPCO to prevent\nhazards to the public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned. While Respondent's effort to ensure\npipeline safety is acknowledged, the evidence was submitted after completion of the inspection.\nEvidence that relates to activities that occurred after the inspection is not relevant to determining\nwhether a violation occurred. The documents were not provided during the inspection nor during\nthe post inspection exit interview. The evidence was submitted after completion of the inspection.\nRespondent has not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justified its failure to\ndemonstrate compliance during the inspection or during the post inspection. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. $195.402(a) and (c) (4), as Respondent failed to designated which\npipeline facilities are located in areas that would require immediate response by the operator to\nprevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned.\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.403(a) and (b), as Respondent\ndid not demonstrate that it conducts a continuous training program to instruct emergency response\n\n\n\npersonnel. Respondent did not provide records to demonstrate that each employee's performance\nin meeting the objectives of the emergency response training was accomplished each calendar year,\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nIn its Response, Respondent advised that it completed an extensive training program some time ago,\nbut it has not sufficiently developed a system-wide documentation program to demonstrate its\neffectiveness nor the personnel involved in the program. Respondent submitted an excerpt of the\nminimum program elements for its field operations personnel. Respondent explained that it is\ncurrently in the process of developing a more comprehensive and precise documentation system to\ncapture involvement of its personnel in ongoing emergency response training. Respondent also\nadvised that it recognizes the limitations of its documentation process. Nevertheless, Respondent\ncontended that it is in compliance with the intent and spirit of the regulation.\nRespondent has not sufficiently developed a system-wide documentation program. Respondent is\ncurrently in the process of developing a more comprehensive and precise documentation system.\nWhile Respondent demonstrated that it is working toward compliance, Respondent failed to\ndemonstrate that it is in compliance. Without this history to demonstrate each employee's\nperformance in meeting the objectives of the emergency response training, an operator increases the\nrisk of harm to its personnel and the public. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would\njustify elimination of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. $195.403(a) and (b), as Respondent failed to demonstrate that it conducts a continuous\ntraining program to instruct emergency response personnel.\nItem 5 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.412(a), as Respondent failed\nto properly inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Respondent\npatrols its right-of-ways by aircraft but the aerial patrol views are obstructed by significant\noverhanging tree canopy in many areas, effectively blocking the view of various right-of-ways.\nIn its Response, Respondent advised that it is assessing each location specified in the Notice and\nworking to insure additional canopies are removed. Respondent further advised that each patrol pilot\nhas been interviewed to insure no addition locations requiring attention have been overlooked.\nRespondent contended that certain areas may have had restricted viewing capabilities but there was\nsufficient exposure for adequate inspection of the system.\nThe patrolling of right-of-ways is essential to help identify potential problems which could develop\nfrom third party activities along the pipeline. Patrolling is also crucial for leak detection.\nRespondent failed to exercise vigilance commensurate with the danger to protect the public,\nenvironment, and property from injury and destruction. Inspections by Respondent that were\nobstructed by significant overhanging tree canopy were inefficient. The failure to properly patrol\nand follow-up on activities along the right-of-way could lead to significant harm to the public and\nthe environment should damage to the pipeline occur or a leak develops. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. $195.412, as Respondent failed to properly inspect the surface\nconditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way.\n\n\n\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. fj 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. fj 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 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 $ 35,000 for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nThe proposed civil penalty for Item 1 is $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. fj 192.402(a), as\nRespondent failed to designate which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require\nimmediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or\nmalfunctioned. Respondent subsequently submitted sections of its O&M manual to demonstrate\ncompliance. Respondent contended that its submission shows its compliance with federal\nregulations and requested withdrawal of the proposed civil penalty. The documentation submitted\nby Respondent was not provided during the inspection nor during the post inspection exit interview.\nThe evidence was submitted after completion of the inspection. Evidence that relates to activities\nthat occurred after the inspection is not relevant to determining whether a violation occurred.\nRespondent has not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justified its failure to\ndemonstrate compliance during the inspection. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000 for this violation.\nThe proposed civil penalty for Item 2 is $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. fj 192.403(a) and (b), as\nRespondent failed to demonstrate that it conducts a continuous training program to instruct\nemergency response personnel. Although Respondent advised that it is in the process of developing\na more comprehensive and precise documentation system, it failed to provide records to demonstrate\nthat each employee's performance in meeting the objectives of the emergency response training was\naccomplished each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 15 months. An objective of the\nregulation is to assure that operator emergency response personnel are prepared to recognize\nconditions that are likely to cause emergencies, know the characteristics and hazards of the product\ntransported and take steps necessary to control any accidental release of hazardous liquids and\nminimize the potential danger to the public and environment if the facilities failed or malfunctioned\nin an expeditious and safe manner. When an operator fails to conduct a continuous training program\nto instruct emergency response personnel, the proper procedures and techniques to follow may not\nbe clear to those responsible for responding to an emergency, which increases the risk of harm to its\npersonnel and the public. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000 for this violation.\n\n\n\nThe proposed civil penalty for Item 3 is $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §192.403(c), as\nRespondent failed to maintain records to demonstrate and verify the supervisors' knowledge of\nemergency response procedures, in accordance with $ 195.402. Respondent did not contest the\nviolation or the civil penalty. The supervisors' knowledge of emergency response procedures is\nessential to reduce potential harm to the public and the environment that may result from a pipeline\nemergency. Accordingly, havingreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation for 49 C.F.R. 8 192.403(c).\nThe proposed civil penalty for Item 4 is $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §192.410(a), as\nRespondent failed to place and maintain pipeline markers over each buried pipeline. Respondent's\nP-74 line east of mile post 381 was improperly marked and pine trees have been planted on top of\nwhere the line locator showed the P-74 line to be buried. Respondent's P-31 line southwest of mile\npost 106, and its P-2 and P-62 lines north of the Ouachita River were not sufficiently marked to\naccurately locate the pipelines in many areas along the right-of-way. Respondent did not contest the\nviolation or the civil penalty. The rule contemplates the protection of both people and property from\nan accidental discharge from the pipeline. Unmarked or inaccurate line markers increase the risk\nof harm to the public, environment, and property. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for this violation.\nThe proposed civil penalty for Item 5 is $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 192.412(a), as\nRespondent failed to properly inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-\nway. Respondent patrols its right-of-ways by aircraft but the aerial patrol views are obstructed by\nsignificant overhanging tree canopy in many areas, effectively blocking the view of various right-of-\nways. Respondent advised that it is assessing each location specified in the Notice. Respondent\nrequested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty. Respondent argued that certain areas may have\nhad restricted viewing capabilities but there was sufficient exposure for adequate inspection of the\nsystem. Although Respondent contended in its response that there was sufficient exposure, during\nthe exit interview, Respondent's personnel stated that they had not flown with the pilot to verify the\ncontention that there was sufficient exposure for adequate inspection ofthe system. A proper system\nof inspection should be maintained to insure reasonable promptness in the detection of all surface\nconditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way for indications of any and all factors affecting\nthe safety and operations of the pipeline. Inspections by Respondent that were obstructed by\nsignificant overhanging tree canopy were inefficient. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. §192.412(a).\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $35,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. $89.2 1 (b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\n\n\n\nOperations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $35,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 3 1 U.S.C. 5 3717,31 C.F.R. 5 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. 5 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 1 10 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 a United States District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. 5 190.21 5, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payment for the\ncivil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nDate Issued\nfowipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":18282}