{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220081003","title":"FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-02-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.619(a), 192.709(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220081003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220081003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220081003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220081003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.619(a),  192.709(c). The case was opened on 2008-02-13 and is reported as closed as of 2010-08-06. Proposed civil penalty: $50,000. Assessed civil penalty: $50,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220081003_Final Order_07262010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081003/220081003_Final%20Order_07262010_text.pdf\n\n220081003_Final Order_07262010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081003/220081003_Final%20Order_07262010.pdf\n\n220081003_NOPV PCP_02132008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081003/220081003_NOPV%20PCP_02132008.pdf\n\n220081003_nopv pcp_02132008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081003/220081003_nopv%20pcp_02132008_text.pdf\n\n220081003_operator response_03202008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081003/220081003_operator%20response_03202008.pdf\n\n220081003_Final Order_07262010_text.pdf\n\nJUL 26 2010\nMr. Robert O. Bond\nPresident\nFlorida Gas Transmission Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056-5306\nRE: CPF No. 2-2008-1003\nDear Mr. Bond:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $50,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 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: Mr. Jerry Rau, Director of Pipeline Integrity, Florida Gas Transmission\nMr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED[ 7005 1160 0001 0039 0737]\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 )\nFlorida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2008-1003\n)\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween September 18 and December 8, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an inspection of the natural gas pipeline facilities of Florida Gas\nTransmission Company (FGT or Respondent) in central and south Florida and examined FGT\nrecords in the company’s Maitland, Florida office. FGT, a Southern Union/El Paso affiliate,\noperates approximately 5,000 miles of natural gas pipelines from Texas to South Florida.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 13, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat FGT had committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $50,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent\nhad committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning Respondent\nto take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\nFGT responded to the Notice by letter dated March 20, 2008 (Response). Respondent contested\none of the alleged violations, provided information to explain its actions regarding the others,\nand requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic\npipelines.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may\noperate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the\nlowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment . . . .\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the\nsegment was tested after construction as follows . . . .\n(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was\nsubjected . . .\n(4) The pressure determined by the operator to be the maximum safe\npressure after considering the history of the segment, particularly known\ncorrosion and the applicable operating pressure.\n(c) . . . An operator must still comply with § 192.611.1\nIn addition, prior to April 14, 2006, 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(c) stated in relevant part:\n(c) Notwithstanding the other requirements of this section, an operator\nmay operate a segment of pipeline . . . subject to the requirements of\n§ 192.611.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by exceeding the maximum\nallowable operating pressure (MAOP) of a pipeline segment as established under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.611.\noperations showed that on at least four occasions between October 23, 2004, and April 28, 2006,\nRespondent operated a 1.9-mile 20” pipeline segment immediately upstream of a compressor\nstation in excess of 780 psig, the MAOP of the line as established under § 192.611. Respondent\ndid not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by exceeding the MAOP of a\npipeline segment, as established under 49 C.F.R. § 192.611.\n2 In particular, the Notice stated that a review of FGT’s reports for abnormal\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission\nlines for the periods specified:...\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by\nsubparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until\nthe next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\n1 Effective December 22, 2008, PHMSA issued a final rule that amended 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by adding paragraph\n(d) and revising the text of paragraph (a) accordingly. The amendment did not affect the substantive violation at\nissue in this Item.\n2 Section 192.611 prescribes the requirements for confirming or revising the MAOP of a pipeline in the event of a\nchange in the surrounding class location.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of the patrols, surveys, inspections, and tests performed pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.706,\n192.731, 192.736, 192.739, and 192.745. Five instances were cited where the company\nallegedly failed to maintain proper records.\nFirst, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain the proper records for the semi-\nannual leak surveys it conducted on two transmission lines in Class 3 locations, i.e., the Lake\nCity Lateral and the Gainesville Lateral, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a). Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that FGT’s records from the leak surveys conducted on May 30 and October 31,\n2005, and May 25, 2006, on the Lake City Lateral and on May 12, 2004, and May 9 and\nNovember 8, 2005, on the Gainesville Lateral did not contain any information on the type of\nequipment used to conduct those surveys. In addition, the Notice alleged that leak survey\nrecords for the Lake City Lateral did not reflect the start and endpoints of the Class 3 pipe\nsurveyed.\nSecond, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain the proper records for certain tests\nperformed pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 192.731. Specifically, it alleged that FGT’s records from the\nMarch 14, 2005 and March 23, 2006 high-discharge pressure shutdown tests conducted at\nCompressor Station 21 (West Palm Beach) did not contain the observed test pressures.\nThird, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain the proper records for the gas\ndetection and alarm tests it conducted pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 192.736. In particular, the Notice\nalleged that FGT’s records from the January 10, January 13, and August 30, 2006 tests\nperformed on the audio and visual gas detection alarm devices at the Lecanto, Silver Springs,\nand Orland Compressor Stations lacked documentation of the performance of the lights and\nhorns.\nFourth, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain the proper records for the annual\ninspections and tests it performed on certain pressure limiting and regulating stations, as required\nby 49 C.F.R. § 192.739. Specifically, the Notice alleged that records of the inspection conducted\non January 18, 2006, at the Starke Meter regulator and of the inspection conducted on November\n2, 2005, at the PGS-Jacksonville Meter Station relief valve #1 did not reflect the before (“as\nfound”) and after (“as left”) device readings. In addition, the Notice alleged that the records\nfrom Respondent’s station control panel test reports for Compressor Station 20 (Fort Pierce),\nconducted on March 28, 2005, and January 24, 2006, did not reflect the values of the high- and\nlow-pressure setpoints for the opening and closing of Valve 2001.\nFifth, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain the proper records for the annual\nemergency operations valve inspections it conducted pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 192.745.\nSpecifically, it alleged that records from the 2004-2006 inspections conducted by the Brooker\nand Silver Springs teams did not reflect whether the valves were actually operated during those\ninspections.\nIn its Response, FGT provided an explanation for each of these alleged violations. The company\ncontended, as it had during the inspection, that its personnel had performed the tests or other\nactions required for compliance, but that certain errors and omissions had occurred when FGT\npersonnel entered the data into its recordkeeping system. Respondent also stated that it was\n\n\n\n4\nimplementing a new record system, known as Enterprise Asset Management, which would\nprevent personnel from completing reports without including all of the required information.\nRespondent’s argument that it had performed the requisite tests and inspections but failed to\nrecord the results in a manner that provided complete information is unpersuasive. The alleged\nviolations involved a failure to maintain adequate records, not a failure to perform the tests.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 709(c) by failing to properly maintain records of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test\nperformed pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.706, 192.731, 192.736, 192.739, and 192.745.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the\nviolation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability;\nthe history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any\neffect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $50,000 for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.619(a), for exceeding the MAOP for its pipeline on October 23, 2004, August 31, 2005,\nSeptember 4, 2005, and April 28, 2006. As noted above, Respondent did not contest these\nallegations. It argued, however, that the penalty should be reduced or eliminated because (1) the\nover-pressure events arose from a “breakdown in communications” among company personnel\nregarding company policy, (2) the pipeline’s integrity was never threatened “since the pressure\nnever exceeded the MAOP by 10%,” and (3) FGT had taken measures following the inspection\nto prevent a recurrence of such events in the future.3\nI reject Respondent’s arguments for mitigation of the penalty. First, the cited over-pressure\nevents reduced the effective safety margin for operating the system, as follows:\n• On October 23, 2004, a leaking valve caused the pressure in the affected pipe segment to\nexceed MAOP for between two and four consecutive hours, reaching a maximum\npressure of 789 psig. Responsible personnel were not timely notified about the high\nsegment pressure, and the situation was not discovered or abated until field personnel\nbrought the compressor station back online;\n3 Response, at 1, 3.\n\n\n\n5\n• On August 31, 2005, a leaking valve caused the MAOP for the segment to be exceeded\nfor seven consecutive one-hour periods, reaching a maximum pressure of 792 psig;\n• On September 4, 2005, the MAOP for the segment was exceeded for nine consecutive\none-hour periods, reaching a maximum pressure of 799 psig. FGT did not immediately\nreduce the pressure, choosing instead to wait for the initiation of operations at a nearby\npower plant to accomplish that objective; and\n• On the morning of April 28, 2006, FGT’s Gas Control reported excess pressure in the\nline to the on-call field operator, requiring the release of gas into the atmosphere. A\nsubsequent investigation revealed that a blown fuse in the station control panel had\nresulted in a valve failure. Archived pressure data indicated a maximum segment\npressure of 800.7 psig during the 2:00 a.m. hour, with steadily increasing maximum\nhourly pressures through the 6:00 a.m. hour, to a peak of 842.3 psig. Segment pressure\nexceeded MAOP during five consecutive one-hour periods on the date in question.\nIn its Response, FGT admitted that it had exceeded the MAOP for the segment in question and\nthat these four events arose from an internal breakdown in communications regarding company\npolicy. The company did not explain what sort of “breakdown” had occurred or why. I fail to\nsee why poor communications among company personnel should serve to mitigate the proposed\npenalty since it is the obligation of all operators to ensure that its employees understand and\nfollow regulations designed to prevent or minimize over-pressure events.\nSecond, the fact that these particular over-pressure events may not have caused pressure to rise in\nexcess of 110% of MAOP is irrelevant. The repeated operation of a gas transmission pipeline in\nexcess of MAOP reduces the effective safety margin that is designed into the system and can\nlead to accidents. Therefore, I find that the gravity of the violation supports the proposed\npenalty.\nThird, I reject the argument that FGT’s post-inspection efforts to educate its personnel on MAOP\nrequirements should somehow constitute a basis for reducing or eliminating the proposed\npenalty. While such efforts are laudable, they are ones that would be expected of any prudent\nand reasonable operator in light of such violations.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $40,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.709(c), for failing to properly maintain records of patrols, surveys, inspections, and tests\nrequired under subpart M. Respondent offered an explanation and requested a reduction of the\nproposed civil penalty. Although the failure to record adequate information in the test and\ninspection records resulted from a poorly designed record keeping system, this does not serve to\nreduce the gravity of the violation. Missing or incomplete test and inspection records constitutes\na serious violation because, in the absence of complete and reliable records, neither a pipeline\noperator nor PHMSA can properly evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of an operator’s safety\nprogram. Inadequate records maintenance creates questions as to whether or not Respondent has\n\n\n\n6\nadequately performed maintenance tests or inspections and whether or not its safety equipment is\nset to function as required. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.709(c).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the violations\ndiscussed above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $50,000. A determination has been\nmade that Respondent has the ability to pay the total civil penalty without adversely affecting its\nability to continue business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) 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. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. The Financial\nDivision’s telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $50,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 1) – Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nmanual in determining the odorant injection rate at the Lecanto 30” West Leg\nodorant injection station.\nFGT presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthis item. In particular, Respondent had implemented new procedures and a new records system,\nEnterprise Asset Management, to prevent reoccurrences of this violation in the future. Having\nconsidered such information, I find that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) had\noccurred as of the date of the inspection. FGT is hereby advised to review and correct such\nconditions. In the event OPS finds a violation of this item in a subsequent inspection, FGT may\nbe subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\n\n\n\n7\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":20659}