{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220136003","title":"TREETOP MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-04-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.440(a), 195.440(b), 195.440(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TREETOP MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.440(a),  195.440(b),  195.440(e). The case was opened on 2013-04-16 and is reported as closed as of 2013-11-08. Proposed civil penalty: $20,000. Assessed civil penalty: $20,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220136003_Final Order_10232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136003/220136003_Final%20Order_10232013.pdf\n\n220136003_Final Order_10232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136003/220136003_Final%20Order_10232013_text.pdf\n\n220136003_NOPV_PCP_04162013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136003/220136003_NOPV_PCP_04162013.pdf\n\n220136003_NOPV_PCP_04162013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136003/220136003_NOPV_PCP_04162013_text.pdf\n\n220136003_Final Order_10232013_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 23, 2013\nMr. C. Milton May, Jr.\nChief Operating Officer\nTreetop Midstream Services, LLC\n602 Crescent Place\nSuite 100\nRidgeland, MS 39157\nRe: CPF No. 2-2013-6003\nDear Mr. May:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $20,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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 T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nMr. W. David Ross, Counsel, 602 Crescent Place, Suite 100, Ridgeland, MS 39157\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTreetop Midstream Services, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2013-6003\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 17-18, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the records of Treetop Midstream Services,\nLLC (Treetop or Respondent) in Ridgeland, Mississippi. Treetop operates two pipelines in\nMississippi, the Raleigh pipeline, a six-inch carbon dioxide pipeline located in Smith County,\nand the Baxterville crude oil pipeline, a six-inch pipeline located in Marion County, MS.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 16, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nTreetop violated various subsections of 49 C.F.R. § 195.440 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $20,000 for the alleged violations.\nTreetop responded to the Notice by email on May 9, 2013, and requested an extension, which the\nDirector granted. The Director specified that the extension expired on June 10, 2013, and\nTreetop responded by email on June 10, 2013 (Response). The company did not contest the\nallegations of violation or the proposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Treetop, by counsel, did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 Treetop is affiliated with Tellus Operating Group, LLC (TOG), a company composed of affiliated companies that\nmanage oil and gas assets in Mississippi and Louisiana. TOG website, available at\nhttp://test.tellusoperating.com/aboutus.php (last accessed September 18, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nAPI RP 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Treetop failed to provide baseline message\nmaterial to the affected public in 2007 or 2008, as required by API RP 1162, Table 2-1. The RP\nrequires operators to disseminate baseline message material to the affected public every two\nyears. Treetop also could not produce any documentation that it distributed baseline message\nmaterials along the Baxterville oil pipeline prior to 2009. Respondent’s personnel confirmed that\nthey were unaware of any attempts prior to 2009 to comply with the RP along the Baxterville\npipeline.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a):\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nAPI RP 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Treetop failed to provide baseline message\nmaterial to emergency responders or excavators in 2008, as required by API RP 1162, Table 2-1.\nThe RP requires operators to distribute the baseline message to emergency responders and\nexcavators every year.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) The operator’s program must follow the general program\nrecommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and\ncharacteristics of the operator’s pipeline and facilities.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b) by failing to follow the\ngeneral program recommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and\ncharacteristics of its pipeline and facilities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Treetop, from\n2009-2011, disseminated baseline message brochures that improperly characterized the attributes\nand characteristics of its pipeline systems. In 2009, Treetop mailed a brochure to the affected\npublic describing the characteristics of a high pressure gas line, and not the crude oil pipeline\nthat runs through Baxterville. In addition, the Respondent attached an operator profile sheet to\nits baseline message brochures for both the Baxterville and Raleigh pipelines that referred to the\nDOT Emergency Responder Guidebook for a description of carbon dioxide. This source\nmaterial would not be familiar to the affected public and this constituency would not be expected\nto access the Guidebook in order to understand the baseline message brochure.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b) by failing to follow the general program recommendations of API RP\n1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of its pipeline and facilities.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nAPI RP 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, according to PHMSA’s interviews with\nTreetop’s personnel, Respondent failed to conduct annual program audits or reviews of its public\nawareness program from 2007-2009. According to API RP 1162, Section 8.3, pipeline\noperators must conduct annual program audits or reviews. Treetop did not possess any\ndocumentation that these audits or reviews were conducted.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and implement a written continuing public\n\n\n\n4\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nAPI RP 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Treetop failed to perform a program\neffectiveness evaluation of its public awareness program. According to API RP 1162, Section 8\nand Table 8.1, pipeline operators must evaluate the effectiveness of their public awareness\nprogram at four-year intervals. Treetop assumed operation of the Baxterville pipeline in\nNovember 2006 and therefore was required to complete its first evaluation by November 2010.\nAt the time of the inspection, Treetop personnel indicated that it did not conduct a program\nevaluation until 2012.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) The program must include activities to advise affected\nmunicipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline\nfacility locations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e) by failing to include in its\npublic awareness program activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts,\nbusinesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTreetop failed to provide information that would allow these stakeholders to locate its pipeline\nfacilities. In the baseline message brochures distributed prior to 2012, Treetop stated generally\nthat pipeline markers indicate the location of pipelines, but included no specific information on\nthe location of its facilities. Furthermore, Treetop’s 2009 brochure on the Baxterville pipeline\ncontained photographs of a high pressure gas pipeline marker, which would not aid in the\nidentification of a crude oil pipeline. Finally, Treetop added an operator profile sheet containing\na small map that did not accurately identify the location of its facility.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e) by failing to include in its public awareness program activities to advise\naffected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of its pipeline locations.\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 an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $20,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440(b), for failing to follow the general program recommendations of API RP 1162 and\nassess the unique attributes and characteristics of its system in its written public awareness\nprogram. Treetop neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying an elimination of the proposed penalty. By failing to properly educate the affected\npublic of the distinctive characteristics and attributes of the products transported, Respondent\nfailed in its regulatory responsibility to educate the public on how to recognize and appropriately\nreact to a pipeline accident. The entire goal of a public awareness program is to train the public\non the particularities of an operator’s system, in the hopes that the effects of a potential release\ncan be minimized. Respondent clearly failed to comply with this regulatory obligation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440(a), for failing to develop and implement a written public education program including\nan evaluation of the program’s effectiveness at four-year intervals. This evaluation is required so\nthat operators can evaluate and adjust their program according to its effectiveness in educating\nvarious stakeholders about their systems. By failing to conduct the required evaluation, Treetop\nclearly neglected this responsibility to the potential detriment of the affected public.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\n\n\n\n6\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $20,000.\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 such payment to 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, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $20,000 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.\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\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\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":18053}