{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220085005","title":"COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-03-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.567(a), 195.567(c), 195.573(a)(1), 195.573(e), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220085005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220085005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220085005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220085005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLONIAL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.567(a),  195.567(c),  195.573(a)(1),  195.573(e),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2008-03-26 and is reported as closed as of 2010-08-02. Proposed civil penalty: $135,000. Assessed civil penalty: $135,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220085005_Final Order_07122010  .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220085005/220085005_Final%20Order_07122010%20%20.pdf\n\n220085005_Final Order_07122010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220085005/220085005_Final%20Order_07122010_text.pdf\n\n220085005_nopv letter_03262008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220085005/220085005_nopv%20letter_03262008.pdf\n\n220085005_nopv letter_03262008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220085005/220085005_nopv%20letter_03262008_text.pdf\n\n220085005_operator response to notice_04302008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220085005/220085005_operator%20response%20to%20notice_04302008.pdf\n\n220085005_Final Order_07122010_text.pdf\n\nJUL 12 2010\nMr. Tim Felt\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100\nAlpharetta, GA 30009-4738\nRE: CPF 2-2008-5005\nDear Mr. Felt:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $135,000. 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. Doug Belden, General Manager, Colonial Pipeline Company\nMr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0039 0584]\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 )\n)\nColonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 2-2008-5005\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 27, 2007 to December 14, 2007, 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 on-site pipeline safety inspection of Colonial Pipeline Company’s\n(Respondent or Colonial) facilities in South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, and of company\nrecords in Austell, Chattahoochee, and Ringgold, GA, and in Belton and Spartanburg, SC.\nBased in Alpharetta, Georgia, Colonial Pipeline delivers gasoline, home heating oil, aviation fuel\nand other refined petroleum products throughout the southern and eastern United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 26, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty and Warning (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $135,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding\nthat Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nwarning Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 30, 2008 (Response). With the\nexception of Item 4A discussed below, Colonial did not dispute the allegations. Respondent\noffered information explaining its actions in regard to the other items and requested that the\nproposed penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§ 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to perform\ntests to monitor external corrosion control at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether its cathodic protection (CP) system complied with\n49 C.F.R. § 195.571. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial’s CP survey records showed\nthat tests had not been conducted within the required intervals, as evidenced by the following\ninformation:\nA. Line 02, Milepost 1835+28 Ridge Road. Surveys were not performed in 2005\nand 2006 calendar years.\n07/08/04: -1.4v\n09/16/05: 0v (remarks indicate test lead was not found)\n07/24/06: 0v (remarks indicate test lead was not found)\n08/06/07: -1.986v;\nB. Line 13, Milepost 635+73 Paces Ferry Rd. Surveys were not performed in\n2005 and 2006 calendar years.\n08/10/04: -0.915v\n10/05/05: no reading (remarks indicate bad test lead)\n08/13/06: no reading, no remarks\n08/29/06: 0v (remarks indicate test station not found)\n11/07/07: -0.974v;\nC. Line 15, Milepost 1124+23 Remington Dr. Survey was not performed in 2005\ncalendar year.\n08/10/04: -1.1v\n10/05/05: no reading (remarks indicate test lead was not found)\n08/12/06: no reading (remarks convey pipeline does not cross Remington)\n08/29/06: -1.142v;\nD. Line 16, Milepost 1356+28 PPL Xing. Surveys were not performed in 2004,\n2005, and 2006 calendar years.\n08/25/04: no reading (remarks indicate vegetation overgrowth, unable to\nfind)\n10/03/05: 0v\n08/27/06: no reading (remarks indicate test station not found)\n11/10/07: -0.889v;\n\n\n\n3\nE. Line 16, Milepost 1378+78 Hwy. 29. Surveys were not performed in 2004 and\n2005 calendar years.\n08/30/04: no reading (remarks indicate no test station)\n10/03/05: no reading, no remarks\n08/26/06: -1.004v;\nF. Line 19 Milepost 6801+78 L&N Railroad spur. Surveys were not performed in\n2005 and 2006 calendar years.\n10/13/05: 0.000 (remarks indicate not found)\n12/13/06: no reading (remarks indicate not found)\n12/01/07: -1.369v;\nG. Line 19 Milepost 6582+50 Sewer Crossing. Survey was not performed in\n2005 calendar year. The 15-month maximum time interval was exceeded in 2007\nby at least 13 days (date of PHMSA inspection).\n10/11/05: 0.000 (remarks indicate test station could not be found).\n08/30/06: -1.022v\n12/01/07: 0.000 (remarks indicate test station could not be found);\nH. Line 20, I-265 (East side) Milepost 6965+06. Surveys were not performed in\n2004 and 2005 calendar years.\n07/30/04: no reading (remarks indicate markers were present, but test\nstation was not).\n10/24/05: no reading (remarks indicate no test station was found)\n12/12/06: -1.880v;\nI. Line 20 Milepost 10+72 Span. Records indicate this location was not surveyed\nin calendar year 2005;\nJ. Line 01, Milepost 1329+91 Rector Road. Survey was not performed in\ncalendar year 2006. Surveys were conducted on March 4, 2005 and May 10,\n2007;\nK. Line 20: The maximum allowed 15-month time period between the 2006 and\n2007 surveys was exceeded at 22 test stations between Mileposts 3185+06 and\n4474+09. Times exceeding the 15-month interval vary from 27 days to 56 days;\nL. Sweetwater Pump Station surveys were performed on 08/08/06 and 11/16/07.\nThe 15-month maximum time interval was exceeded by 8 days.\nIn its Response, Colonial did not dispute these allegations but explained that it had an ongoing\ncorrosion control program in place to address test readings of cathodic protection levels that did\nnot meet one or more of its criteria. The company indicated that it had reviewed its procedures\nrelating to the scheduling and evaluation of annual surveys and that it planned to make certain\n\n\n\n4\nimprovements to the procedures to ensure that future tests were completed within the time\nrequirements. Respondent stated that cathodic protection tests had been conducted in 2007 at all\nlocations, except for the location reflected in Item 3G. Colonial indicated that a new test station\nwould be installed at Line 19 Milepost 6582+50 Sewer Crossing and a test scheduled.\nRespondent stated that it adhered to the continuing use of successfully applied criteria on its\npipeline system, as referenced in NACE International Standard RP 0169.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a) (1) by failing to conduct tests to monitor external corrosion control on its protected\npipeline at least once each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine\nwhether its CP system complied with 49 C.F.R. § 195.571. Specifically, I find that Colonial’s\nrecords reveal 12 instances (3A-3L) from 2004 to 2007 of its failure to complete tests within the\nrequired interval.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.573(e) and 195.401(b),\nwhich state, in relevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) . . .\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency\ninvolves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452, you\nmust correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).\n§ 195.401 General requirements.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a\nreasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it presents\nan immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not operate the\naffected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573 by failing to correct certain\nidentified deficiencies in corrosion control, as required by § 195.401(b). Specifically, it alleged\nthat Colonial failed, within a reasonable time, to correct certain deficiencies that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline. PHMSA has generally considered a “reasonable time” to\nbe the maximum time allowed between required annual cathodic protection surveys (15 months\nmaximum from the discovery of a deficient survey reading).\nThe inspection revealed the following deficiencies:\nA. Line 02 Milepost 7833+46, Liberty Church Road Survey reading taken on 03/01/06\nwas deficient. The deficiency was corrected in approximately 18 months.\n03/01/06: -0.797v\n03/22/07: -0.623v\n\n\n\n5\nA new cathodic protection system was completed on 08/25/07, with a close\ninterval survey (CIS) performed on 08/30/07;\nB. Line 19 Mileposts 1078+35 Cochran Road, 1141+60 Woods Road, and 1165+60\nFence. Survey readings taken on 07/16/04 were deficient. Records indicate the deficient\nconditions were not corrected until at least after 11/28/06 (28 + months from discovery).\nSurvey readings for these three locations are listed below:\nCochran Road Woods Road Fence\n07/16/04: -0.69v 07/16/04: -.064v 07/16/04: -0.645v\n09/09/05: -0.72v 09/09/05: -.0655v 09/09/05: -0.803v\n11/28/06: -0.672v 11/28/06: -0.621v 11/30/06: -0.717v\n09/18/07: -1.064v 09/18/07: -1.411v 09/19/07: -1.436v;\nC. Atlanta Junction breakout tanks. No documentation was provided indicating actions\nhad been taken to correct “low” cathodic protection survey readings within a reasonable\ntime, as evidenced by the following information:\nTank #333 Bottom\n08/23/04: N side -0.528v, W side -0.559v.\n11/22/05: N side -0.418v, W side -0.522v.\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/06/07 Observed during inspection: N side -0.492v, W side -0.541v. No\nvoltage on c.p. cable.\n12/11/07: N side -0.858v, W side -0.949v;\nTank #334 Bottom\n08/23/04: N side -0.394v, S side -0.480v, E side -0.302v, W side -0.445v.\n11/22/05: N side -0.306v, S side -0.424v, E side -0.403v, W side -0.325v.\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/06/07 Observed during inspection: N side -0.608v, S side -0.748v, E\nside -0.780v,\nW side -0.680v. No voltage on c.p. cable.\n12/11/07: N side -0.508v, S side -0.577v, E side -0.451v, W side -0.571v;\nTank #335 Bottom\n08/23/04: W side -0.775v\n11/22/05: W side -0.578v\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/11/07: W side -0.953v; and\nTank #353 Bottom\n11/22/05: N side -0.650v, S side -0.625v, E side -0.626v, W side -0.590v.\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/06/07 Observed during inspection: W side -0.810v.\n\n\n\n6\n12/12/07: N side -0.890v, S side -0.980v, E side -1.012v, W side -0.828v.\nIn its response to Item 4A, Colonial contested this allegation of violation, arguing that, in\naddition to its annual survey, it had completed a CIS of this line segment on March 6, 2006.\nRespondent further contended that it had performed additional testing of existing rectifiers and\ngroundbeds that influenced the area, in order to determine the proper solution to the exception.\nThe company argued that its records indicated that it had discovered a CP deficiency on\nSeptember 1, 2006, which was within the time allowed by §195.452(h) (2), and that an additional\nCP system was then designed and installed to remediate the deficient area by August 25, 2007.\nRespondent argued that the subject location was evaluated and repaired within a reasonable time\nand was therefore consistent with regulatory requirements.\nI reject the company’s argument that § 195.452(h)(2) applies to the deficiency identified here.\nThe requirement under § 195.573(e) that operators correct deficiencies involving pipelines\ncovered by an Integrity Management (IM) program in accordance with § 195.452(h) does not\nsupplant the requirement that they correct identified corrosion control deficiencies for such\npipelines within a reasonable time under §195.401(b). Under the integrity management\nregulations, once an operator discovers an anomalous condition on its pipeline through the\nintegrity assessment process, it must promptly, but no later than 180 days after such assessment,\nascertain whether the condition “presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.” If so,\nthen the operator must establish a schedule for further evaluation and remediation of such\nconditions based upon a prioritization of risk.\nI interpret 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) to mean that corrosion control deficiencies identified through\nan operator’s IM program may be corrected according to a prioritized schedule based upon risk,\nbut that such schedule does not negate or supplant the requirement that deficiencies identified\nthrough an operator’s regular corrosion control program be corrected within a reasonable time.\nTo read the regulation otherwise would mean that corrosion control deficiencies on pipelines\nlocated in higher-risk areas covered by an IM program could be remediated less promptly that\nthose located in lower-risk locations.\nRespondent has not provided any evidence that the CP deficiency discovered on 03/01/06 was\ncorrected within a reasonable time. The risk of corrosion on the pipeline significantly increases\nwithout proper cathodic protection systems. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s records show\nit failed to correct the identified corrosion control deficiencies within a reasonable time, as\nrequired by § 195.573(e).\nIn its response to Item 4B, Colonial explained that it had addressed many areas for corrosion\neach year, but the time required to determine if a deficiency actually existed (discovery of a\ndeficiency) and to make repairs varied, depending up conditions at each site. Colonial contended\nthat the timeline for making the required corrections in these particular locations was extended,\nprimarily due to difficult local site conditions and local permit requirements, and that\nremediation had been made prior to the PHMSA inspection.\n\n\n\n7\nRespondent asserted that numerous attempts had been made in 2005 and 2006 to identify\nlocations to install new CP systems, but there was a lack of available electrical power in the areas\nand that necessary right-of-way easements had not been obtained until 2007. While this may\nhave been true, it does not constitute a valid defense to the allegation of violation. Accordingly,\nI find that Respondent’s records show it failed to correct the identified corrosion control\ndeficiencies within a reasonable time, as required by § 195.573(e).\nIn its response to Item 4C, Colonial explained that it had performed investigations and repairs of\nthe Atlanta Journal breakout tanks identified in the Notice and had completed the proposed\ncorrective actions. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s records show it failed to correct the\nidentified corrosion control deficiencies within a reasonable time, as required by § 194.573(e).\nRespondent has presented evidence showing that it has now completed follow-up investigations\nand repairs, but not that any attempts were made to achieve compliance prior to the PHMSA\ninspection. Respondent has an affirmative duty to achieve and maintain compliance. To\ndemonstrate compliance, operators must provide relevant documentation and records during a\npipeline safety inspection, as required by Federal pipeline safety laws and regulations. Having\nconsidered information relative to Items 4(a)-(c), and after considering all the evidence, I find\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct, within a reasonable time, the\ncited deficiencies in corrosion control.\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 $135,000 for the violations cited above.\nThe Notice in Item 3 proposed a civil penalty of $52,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.573(a) (1), for failing to perform CP tests at least once each calendar year, with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months. Inspection and testing at the required intervals are essential\nto knowing that the pipeline equipment is being maintained, that it will function properly, and\nthat its integrity has not been compromised. Colonial requested a reduction in the proposed civil\npenalty based on its good faith efforts to correct the deficiencies before the PHMSA inspection\n\n\n\n8\nand before the Notice was issued. I am not persuaded in this case that non-compliant test survey\nfrequencies could somehow be “corrected” after the fact or that such efforts demonstrate “good\nfaith” in attempting to achieve compliance. Respondent has not shown any circumstance that\nwould have prevented it from conducting CP tests on the pipeline within the required intervals or\nthat would have justified its failure to do so. Respondent has not shown any circumstances that\nwould justify reduction of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $52,000, for\nviolation of § 195.573(a) (1).\nThe Notice in Item 4 proposed a civil penalty of $83,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n§ 195.573(e), for failing to correct identified corrosion control deficiencies within a reasonable\ntime, as required by § 195.401(b). An operator must provide protection for pipeline segments\nthrough preventive and mitigative measures to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the\nconsequences of a failure. The regulation requires safety precautions that minimize the risk of\naccident or injury to human life, the environment and property. Colonial requested a reduction in\nthe amount of the proposed civil penalty because it disagreed that Item 4A constituted a violation\nand because it had corrected the alleged deficiencies before the PHMSA inspection and before\nthe Notice was issued. During a pipeline safety inspection, operators must provide the\ndocumentation and records to demonstrate compliance, as required by Federal pipeline safety\nlaws and regulations. Respondent failed to demonstrate compliance during the inspection or\nduring the post-inspection exit interview. Respondent has not shown any circumstances that\nwould justify reduction of the proposed civil penalty. Preventive maintenance is critical to the\nsafety of the public, environment and property. I find that the penalty proposed for this violation\nis proportionate to the danger posed by the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $83,000, for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e).\nFurthermore, I find that Respondent has the ability to pay the penalties discussed above without\nadversely affecting its ability to continue in business. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $135,000.\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\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $135,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in 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 relief in a district\ncourt of the United States.\n\n\n\n9\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2 and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose civil penalties or a compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.567(a) (Notice Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have an\nelectrical test lead on Line 19, Milepost 1733+08. Respondent’s annual CP survey\nrecords indicate that the pipeline was normally “probed” to obtain the pipe-to-soil\nsurvey reading. Respondent demonstrated that it had taken certain actions to\naddress this item by installing a test lead on April 23, 2008;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.567(c) (Notice Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain test lead wires in a condition that would enable a person to determine the\npipeline’s CP status and obtain electrical measurements to determine whether the\ncathodic protection complied with § 195.571. Colonial demonstrated that it was\ntaking certain actions to address this item with its corrosion control program by\ninstalling and maintaining test leads at the sites identified in the Notice; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Notice Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain records of the 2006 annual survey of its Atlanta Junction breakout tank\nbottoms for as long as the pipeline remained in service, as required by\n§§ 195.573(a) (1) and 195.573(d). Respondent demonstrated that it was taking\ncertain actions to address this item by developing instructions related to retaining\ncorrosion control information and documents. An evaluation of needed\nimprovements, if any, was planned by Respondent to ensure that proper records\nwere maintained.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(a) (Notice Item 1), 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.567(c) (Notice Item 2) and 49 C.F.R. § 195. 589(c) (Notice Item 5) have occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation\nfor any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a 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\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\n\n\n\n10\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\n\n220085005_Final Order_07122010  .pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSafety Administration\n'JUL 1 2 2010\nMr. Tim Felt\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100\nAlpharetta, GA 30009-4738\nRE: CPF 2-2008-5005\nDear Mr. Felt:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $135,000. 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 providec\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\n(\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nMr. Doug Belden, General Manager, Colonial Pipeline Company\nMr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0039 0584]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\n)\nColonial Pipeline Company,\nCPF No. 2-2008-5005\n)\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 27, 2007 to December 14, 2007, 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 on-site pipeline safety inspection of Colonial Pipeline Company's\n(Respondent or Colonial) facilities in South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, and of company\nrecords in Austell, Chattahoochee, and Ringgold, GA, and in Belton and Spartanburg, SC.\nBased in Alpharetta, Georgia, Colonial Pipeline delivers gasoline, home heating oil, aviation fuel\nand other refined petroleum products throughout the southern and eastern United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 26, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty and Warning (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $135,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding\nthat Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nwarning Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 30, 2008 (Response). With the\nexception of Item 4A discussed below, Colonial did not dispute the allegations. Respondent\noffered information explaining its actions in regard to the other items and requested that the\nproposed penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n$ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines.\nYou must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§ 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to perform\ntests to monitor external corrosion control at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 13 months, to determine whether its cathodic protection (CP) system complied with\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.571. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial's CP survey records showed\nthat tests had not been conducted within the required intervals, as evidenced by the following\ninformation:\nA. Line 02, Milepost 1835+28 Ridge Road. Surveys were not performed in 2005\nand 2006 calendar years.\n07/08/04:-1.4v\n09/16/05: Ov (remarks indicate test lead was not found)\n07/24/06: Ov (remarks indicate test lead was not found)\n08/06/07: - 1.986v;\nB. Line 13, Milepost 635+73 Paces Ferry Rd. Surveys were not performed in\n2005 and 2006 calendar years.\n08/10/04: -0.915\n10/05/05: no reading (remarks indicate bad test lead)\n08/13/06: no reading, no remarks\n08/29/06: Ov (remarks indicate test station not found)\n11/07/07: -0.974v;\nC. Line 15, Milepost 1124+23 Remington Dr. Survey was not performed in 2005\ncalendar year.\n08/10/04: -1.1v\n10/05/05: no reading (remarks indicate test lead was not found)\n08/12/06: no reading (remarks convey pipeline does not cross Remington)\n08/29/06: - 1.142v;\nD. Line 16, Milepost 1356+28 PPL Xing. Surveys were not performed in 2004,\n2005, and 2006 calendar years.\n08/25/04: no reading (remarks indicate vegetation overgrowth. unable to\nfind)\n10/03/05: Ov\n08/27/06: no reading (remarks indicate test station not found)\n11/10/07: -0.889v;\nE. Line 16, Milepost 1378+78 Hwy. 29. Surveys were not performed in 2004 and\n2005 calendar years.\n08/30/04: no reading (remarks indicate no test station)\n\n\n\n3\n10/03/05: no reading, no remarks\n08/26/06: -1.004v;\nF. Line 19 Milepost 6801+78 L&N Railroad spur. Surveys were not performed in\n2005 and 2006 calendar years.\n10/13/05: 0.000 (remarks indicate not found)\n12/13/06: no reading (remarks indicate not found)\n12/01/07: -1.369v;\nG. Line 19 Milepost 6582+50 Sewer Crossing. Survey was not performed in\n2005 calendar year. The 15-month maximum time interval was exceeded in 2007\nby at least 13 days (date of PHMSA inspection).\n10/11/05: 0.000 (remarks indicate test station could not be found).\n08/30/06: -1.022v\n12/01/07: 0.000 (remarks indicate test station could not be found);\nH. Line 20, I-265 (East side) Milepost 6965+06. Surveys were not performed in\n2004 and 2005 calendar years.\n07/30/04: no reading (remarks indicate markers were present, but test\nstation was not).\n10/24/05: no reading (remarks indicate no test station was found)\n12/12/06: - 1.880v;\nI. Line 20 Milepost 10+72 Span. Records indicate this location was not surveyed\nin calendar year 2005;\nJ. Line 01, Milepost 1329+91 Rector Road. Survey was not performed in\ncalendar year 2006. Surveys were conducted on March 4, 2005 and May 10,\n2007;\nK. Line 20: The maximum allowed 15-month time period between the 2006 and\n2007 surveys was exceeded at 22 test stations between Mileposts 3185+06 and\n4474+09. Times exceeding the 15-month interval vary from 27 days to 56 days;\nL. Sweetwater Pump Station surveys were performed on 08/08/06 and 11/16/07.\nThe 15-month maximum time interval was exceeded by 8 days.\nIn its Response, Colonial did not dispute these allegations but explained that it had an ongoing\ncorrosion control program in place to address test readings of cathodic protection levels that did\nnot meet one or more of its criteria. The company indicated that it had reviewed its procedures\nrelating to the scheduling and evaluation of annual surveys and that it planned to make certain\nimprovements to the procedures to ensure that future tests were completed within the time\nrequirements. Respondent stated that cathodic protection tests had been conducted in 2007 at all\nlocations, except for the location reflected in Item 3G. Colonial indicated that a new test station\nwould be installed at Line 19 Milepost 6582+50 Sewer Crossing and a test scheduled.\n\n\n\n4\nRespondent stated that it adhered to the continuing use of successfully applied criteria on its\npipeline system, as referenced in NACE International Standard RP 0169.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a) (1) by failing to conduct tests to monitor external corrosion control on its protected\npipeline at least once each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine\nwhether its CP system complied with 49 C.F.R. $ 195.571. Specifically, I find that Colonial's\nrecords reveal 12 instances (3A-3L) from 2004 to 2007 of its failure to complete tests within the\nrequired interval.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $§ 195.573(e) and 195.401(b),\nwhich state, in relevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency\ninvolves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452, you\nmust correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).\n$ 195.401 General requirements.\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a\nreasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it presents\nan immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not operate the\naffected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573 by failing to correct certain\nidentified deficiencies in corrosion control, as required by § 195.401(b). Specifically, it alleged\nthat Colonial failed, within a reasonable time, to correct certain deficiencies that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline. PHMSA has generally considered a \"reasonable time\" to\nbe the maximum time allowed between required annual cathodic protection surveys (15 months\nmaximum from the discovery of a deficient survey reading).\nThe inspection revealed the following deficiencies:\nA. Line 02 Milepost 7833+46, Liberty Church Road Survey reading taken on 03/01/06\nwas deficient. The deficiency was corrected in approximately 18 months.\n03/01/06: -0.797v\n03/22/07: -0.623\nA new cathodic protection system was completed on 08/25/07, with a close\ninterval survey (CIS) performed on 08/30/07;\nB. Line 19 Mileposts 1078+35 Cochran Road, 1141+60 Woods Road, and 1165+60\nFence. Survey readings taken on 07/16/04 were deficient. Records indicate the deficient\n\n\n\n5\nconditions were not corrected until at least after 11/28/06 (28 + months from discovery).\nSurvey readings for these three locations are listed below:\nCochran Road\nWoods Road\nFence\n07/16/04: -0.69v\n07/16/04: - 064v\n07/16/04: -0.645v\n09/09/05: -0.72v\n09/09/05: - 0655v\n09/09/05: -0.803v\n11/28/06: -0.672v\n11/28/06: -0.621v\n11/30/06: -0.717v\n09/18/07: -1.064v\n09/18/07: -1.411\n09/19/07: -1.436v;\nC. Atlanta Junction breakout tanks. No documentation was provided indicating actions\nhad been taken to correct \"low\" cathodic protection survey readings within a reasonable\ntime, as evidenced by the following information\nTank #333 Bottom\n08/23/04: N side -0.528v, W side -0.559v.\n11/22/05: N side -0.418v, W side -0.522v.\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/06/07 Observed during inspection: N side -0.492v, W side -0.541v. No\nvoltage on c.p. cable.\n12/11/07: N side -0.858v, W side -0.949v;\nTank #334 Bottom\n08/23/04: N side -0.394v, S side -0.480v, E side -0.302v, W side -0.445v.\n11/22/05: N side -0.306v, S side -0.424v, E side -0.403v, W side -0.325v.\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/06/07 Observed during inspection: N side -0.608v, S side -0.748v, E\nside -0.780v,\nW side -0.680v. No voltage on c.p. cable.\n12/11/07: N side -0.508v, S side -0.577v, E side -0.451v, W side -0.571v;\nTank #335 Bottom\n08/23/04: W side -0.775v\n11/22/05: W side -0.578v\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/11/07: W side -0.953v; and\nTank #353 Bottom\n11/22/05: N side -0.650v, S side -0.625v, E side -0.626v, W side -0.590v.\nNo documented survey in 2006.\n12/06/07 Observed during inspection: W side -0.810v.\n12/12/07: N side -0.890v, S side -0.980v, E side - 1.012v, W side -0.828v.\nIn its response to Item 4A, Colonial contested this allegation of violation, arguing that, in\naddition to its annual survey, it had completed a CIS of this line segment on March 6, 2006.\nRespondent further contended that it had performed additional testing of existing rectifiers and\ngroundbeds that influenced the area, in order to determine the proper solution to the exception.\nThe company argued that its records indicated that it had discovered a CP deficiency on\n\n\n\n6\nSeptember 1, 2006, which was within the time allowed by $195.452(h) (2), and that an additional\nCP system was then designed and installed to remediate the deficient area by August 25, 2007.\nRespondent argued that the subject location was evaluated and repaired within a reasonable time\nand was therefore consistent with regulatory requirements.\nI reject the company's argument that § 195.452(h)(2) applies to the deficiency identified here.\nThe requirement under § 195.573(e) that operators correct deficiencies involving pipelines\ncovered by an Integrity Management (IM) program in accordance with § 195.452(h) does not\nsupplant the requirement that they correct identified corrosion control deficiencies for such\npipelines within a reasonable time under $195.401(b). Under the integrity management\nregulations, once an operator discovers an anomalous condition on its pipeline through the\nintegrity assessment process, it must promptly, but no later than 180 days after such assessment,\nascertain whether the condition \"presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.\" If so,\nthen the operator must establish a schedule for further evaluation ","truncated":true,"body_characters":51976}