{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220111006","title":"GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-05-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(b), 192.167(a)(4), 192.463(a), 192.475(b), 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.612(c)(3), 192.709(a), 192.709(c), 192.805(b), 192.805(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220111006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220111006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220111006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220111006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.15(b),  192.167(a)(4),  192.463(a),  192.475(b),  192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.612(c)(3),  192.709(a),  192.709(c),  192.805(b),  192.805(i). The case was opened on 2011-05-17 and is reported as closed as of 2011-11-01. Proposed civil penalty: $77,300. Assessed civil penalty: $77,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220111006_Final Order_11012011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220111006/220111006_Final%20Order_11012011.pdf\n\n220111006_Final Order_11012011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220111006/220111006_Final%20Order_11012011_text.pdf\n\n220111006_NOPV PCP_05172011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220111006/220111006_NOPV%20PCP_05172011.pdf\n\n220111006_NOPV PCP_05172011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220111006/220111006_NOPV%20PCP_05172011_text.pdf\n\n220111006_Operator Response to Notice_06242011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220111006/220111006_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06242011.pdf\n\n220111006_Final Order_11012011_text.pdf\n\nNOV 1 2011\nMr. Michael E. McMahon\nSenior Vice President and General Counsel\nGulf South Pipeline Company, LP\n9 East Greenway Plaza\nSuite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 2-2011-1006\nDear Mr. McMahon:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $77,300. This is to acknowledge receipt of your\npayment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated June 24, 2011. This enforcement\naction is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 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. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164202820769]\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 )\nGulf South Pipeline Company, LP, ) CPF No. 2-2011-1006\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 22 - October 9, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Gulf South Pipeline\nCompany, LP (Gulf South or Respondent). Gulf South, a wholly–owned subsidiary of\nBoardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, is an interstate natural gas pipeline system that operates\napproximately 7,700 miles of pipeline in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 17, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice), which also included several warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Gulf South committed\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 191 and 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $77,300 for\nthe alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations.\nGulf South responded to the Notice by letter dated June 24, 2011 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $77,300, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice\nto Respondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Gulf South did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nParts 191 and 192, as follows:\n1 See http://www.gulfsouthpl.com/AboutUsGS.aspx, (last accessed October 13, 2011).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), which states:\n§ 191.15 Transmission and gathering systems: Incident report.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Where additional related information is obtained after a report is\nsubmitted under paragraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a\nsupplemental report as soon as practicable with a clear reference by date\nand subject to the original report.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b) by failing to make a\nsupplemental report as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information related to an\nincident report filed under § 191.15. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Gulf South obtained\nadditional information involving three separate reportable incidents and failed to submit\nsupplemental reports, as soon as practicable.\nWhile Gulf South completed a root cause analysis of a compressor failure on\nSeptember 15, 2005, it did not submit a supplemental report until June 24, 2009, approximately\nthree years and nine months later.2 Gulf South completed a preliminary investigation of a\ndifferent compressor failure on February 8, 2006, but failed to file a supplemental report with\nPHMSA until June 24, 2009, three years and four months later.\n3 Lastly, Respondent conducted a\nmetallurgical analysis of a wrinkle bend failure on March 6, 2007, but sent the supplemental\nreport on June 24, 2009, two years and three months later.4\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b) by failing to make a\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.5 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nsupplemental report regarding three reportable incidents as soon as practicable, after it obtained\nadditional related information.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.167(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.167 Compressor stations: Emergency shutdown.\n(a) Except for unattended field compressor stations of 1,000\nhorsepower (746 kilowatts) or less, each compressor station must have\nan emergency shutdown system that meets the following:\n(1) . . .\n(4) It must be operable from at least two locations, each of which is:\n(i) Outside the gas area of the station;\n(ii) Near the exit gates, if the station is fenced, or near emergency\n2 The Incident Report (IR) number is 20050074 (dated July 15, 2005).\n3 IR 20060034 (March 3, 2006).\n4 IR 20070026 (March 5, 2007).\n5 Gulf South personnel indicated that the supplemental report for IR 20050074, was withheld in anticipation of\nlitigation. However, operators are not excused from their reporting requirements, irrespective of the circumstances.\nNo explanation was given as to why the other cited supplemental reports were not conveyed to PHMSA, as soon as\npracticable.\n\n\n\n3\nexits, if not fenced; and\n(iii) Not more than 500 feet (153 meters) from the limits of the\nstation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.167(a) by failing to have an\nemergency shutdown device near the exit gates of a fenced compressor station. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that while Gulf South maintained an Emergency Shutdown system (ESD) at its\nTallulah Compressor Station (Tallullah), the system was not operable from “at least two\nlocations, each of which is . . . near the exit gates, if the station is fenced.\n” Tallulah is a fenced\nstation and has two exit gates on its perimeter, neither of which is equipped with an ESD system\ninitiation device.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.167(a) by failing to have\nemergency shutdown devices near each of the exit gates of its Tallulah Compressor Station.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c), which states:\n§ 192.491 Corrosion control records.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each operator shall maintain a record of each test, survey, or\ninspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate\nthe adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive\ncondition does not exist. These records must be retained for at least 5\nyears, except that records related to §§ 192.465 (a) and (e) and\n192.475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in\nservice.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each test, survey or inspection required, in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy\nof corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not exist. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that, in three instances, Gulf South failed to maintain records in sufficient detail,\nas required under § 192.491(c).\nIn the first instance, Gulf South failed to maintain records for buried pipeline inspections in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of its corrosion control measures. PHMSA\ninspectors noted that two inspection work order forms did not include details on the depth, type,\nappearance, and extent of the pipe corrosion.\n6\nSecondly, Gulf South failed to maintain records on “each interference bond whose failure would\njeopardize structure protection . . . for proper performance,” as required by § 192.465(c).\nPHMSA inspectors determined that Gulf South’s bond records did not indicate, based on the\nelectrical current and current direction recorded, whether further investigation was warranted.\n6 Bellhole Inspection Work Order No. 23702695 (06/17/09) and Buried Pipeline Inspection Form Work Order Nos.\n23479813 (05/18/06) and 23479812 *05/24/06).\n\n\n\n4\nLastly, Gulf South failed to provide sufficiently detailed records to demonstrate that it took\nprompt remedial action to correct deficiencies identified in two separate instances, as required\nunder § 192.465(d).\nWhile a rectifier was documented as out of service for 16 months, between November 6, 2007,\nand March 6, 2009, and three follow-up orders were issued, no documentation was produced to\njustify this delay. A Gulf South technician indicated that the power company refused to restore\nservice until a new pipeline was laid. However, this explanation was not reflected in Gulf\nSouth’s records. Gulf South also failed to provide accurate and complete records involving a\npipe-to-soil cathodic protection reading taken on May 18, 2006. The remediation records\nprovided to PHMSA were deemed unreliable, as different “remediated” pipe-to-soil readings\nwere indicated for the same readings and some work descriptions appeared to have been\ndocumented on the wrong work orders.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each test, survey, or inspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not\nexist.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that it both has and follows a written qualification program that ensures individuals\nperforming covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Gulf South\npersonnel performed covered tasks without being re-qualified, per Gulf South’s Operator\nQualification (OQ) program. While Gulf South requires that individuals performing covered\ntasked be requalified in three-year intervals, two individuals performed three covered tasks, in\nviolation of this requirement.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to follow its\nwritten qualification program to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks were qualified.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192\nand specifically considered them to be warning items. The warnings were for the following\nItems.\n\n\n\n5\n49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide either\na level of cathodic protection that complied with at least one of the applicable\ncriteria outlined in appendix D or a level of cathodic protection equivalent to\ncompliance with one or more of the criteria. Gulf South found numerous pipe-to-\nsoil readings between -0.850v to -0.900v acceptable, using a designated criterion\nof -0.850v. However, Respondent provided no explanation of how it considered\nthis drop.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to examine any\npipe removed from a pipeline for any reason, for evidence of corrosion. The\nNotice alleged that Gulf South failed to inspect the internal surface of a coupon\nremoved from the 8-inch Tristate Tap for the presence of internal corrosion.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to keep various\nrecords necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605(b).\nThe Notice alleged that Gulf South had either no documentation, inadequate,\nrecords or incorrect information with respect to pipe coatings and pipeline\npressure.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.612(c) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to notify OPS\nwhen it did not bury an exposed underwater pipeline within six months after\ndiscovery due to not obtaining the required permits to complete the work in time.\nThe Notice alleged Gulf South did not notify PHMSA of a reburial delay for the\n8-inch Quarantine Bay pipeline, whose reburial was delayed due to the time\nrequired to obtain permits from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and\nFisheries.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nrecords of each repair made to a transmission line, for as long as the pipe\nremained in service. The Notice alleged that Gulf South failed to correctly\ndocument the date, location, and repair of an external corrosion pit leak on\nJanuary 9, 2007, in Respondent’s automated work order (Maximo) system.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a\nrecord of each patrol, survey, inspection and test required by subparts L and M of\n49 C.F.R § 192 for at least five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection,\nor test was completed, whichever was longer. The Notice alleged that Gulf South\nfailed to correctly document inspection and testing of relief devices, gas detection\nsystems and alarms, and pressure limiting stations at its Longview, Carthage\nJunction, Montpelier, and Destin compressor stations.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805 (Item 11) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to notify the\nAdministrator or state agency after significantly monitoring its written\nqualification program. The Notice alleged that Gulf South failed to notify\nPHMSA that it merged the Texas Gulf and Gulf South OQ plans, effective\nMarch 3, 2008. Gulf South’s OQ program was last inspected in 2004.\n\n\n\n6\nGulf South presented information in its Response showing that it had taken actions to address the\ncited items. If OPS finds one or more of these issues in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $77,300, which has already been paid by Respondent.\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":16207}