{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220136007M","title":"CONTINUUM MIDSTREAM LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-09-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(c)(12), 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(c)(14), 195.402(d)(1), 195.402(e)(2), 195.402(e)(8), 195.403(a)(1), 195.403(b)(1), 195.403(c), 195.420(a), 195.428(a), 195.505(g), 195.505(i), 195.509(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136007m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136007m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136007m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136007M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving CONTINUUM MIDSTREAM LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(12),  195.402(c)(13),  195.402(c)(14),  195.402(d)(1),  195.402(e)(2),  195.402(e)(8),  195.403(a)(1),  195.403(b)(1),  195.403(c),  195.420(a),  195.428(a),  195.505(g),  195.505(i),  195.509(e). The case was opened on 2013-09-09 and is reported as closed as of 2014-04-02. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220136007M_Closure Letter_04022014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136007M/220136007M_Closure%20Letter_04022014.pdf\n\n220136007M_notice of amendment_09092013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136007M/220136007M_notice%20of%20amendment_09092013.pdf\n\n220136007M_notice of amendment_09092013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136007M/220136007M_notice%20of%20amendment_09092013_text.pdf\n\n220136007M_Operator Response Notice_10282013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136007M/220136007M_Operator%20Response%20Notice_10282013.pdf\n\n220136007M_Closure Letter_04022014.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\n233 Peachtree Street Ste. 600\nof Transportation\nAtlanta, GA 30303\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 2, 2014\nMr. Jason Few\nChief Executive Officer\nSeminole Gas Company\n1323 E 71 Street, Suite 300\nTulsa, OK 74136\nCPF 2-2013-6007M\nDear Mr. Few:\nOn March 3, 2014, I received your written response to my February 6, 2014, letter to you\nregarding Seminole's inadequate response to the above referenced Notice of Amendment\n(NOA); specifically items 6, 10, and 11. In your letter you asked for clarification regarding\nmy February 6, 2014, letter. You state,\n\"Seminole and your office agreed to and received\nacknowledgement of... \" certain proposed changes regarding NOA items 6, 10, and 11.\nTo clarify, my office did not previously agree to, acknowledge, or approve the proposed\nprocedural changes described in your February 21, 2014, letter to me. The federal pipeline\nsafety regulations grant the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety the authority to\ndetermine if your procedures are adequate. That authority has been delegated to me by the\nAssociate Administrator - it was not granted to an inspector in my region.\nMoving forward, we have reviewed all your submittals in response to the NOA and have\ndetermined that your responses have complied with the terms of the NOA. No further action\nis necessary with regards to the NOA. This case is now closed.\nWhile not required by the NOA, in almost all cases operators send us their amended written\nprocedures so that we can fully evaluate the procedures themselves to determine if they\nappear to be adequate. Since Seminole did not provide us with the actual written procedures,\nwe will be closely evaluating these procedures during our next inspection.\nIf you have any questions on this or any other pipeline safety issue, please contact my office\nat (404) 832-1147.\nSincerely,\nVan ome\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220136007M_notice of amendment_09092013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 9, 2013\nMr. Jason Few\nChief Executive Officer\nSeminole Gas Company\n1323 E 71st Street, Suite 300\nTulsa, OK 74136\nCPF 2-2013-6007M\nDear Mr. Few:\nFrom April 1-3, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety inspected the Seminole\nGas Company (Seminole) Seminole Murphy Liquids Terminal (SMLT) pipeline’s written\nHazardous Liquids Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Manual (HLOMEM) and\nEmergency Response Plan (ERP) in Bulls Gap, Tennessee, pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified apparent inadequacies within\nSeminole’s written HLOMEM and ERP procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n… (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n… (12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate\npublic officials to learn the responsibility and resources of each government\norganization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline\nemergency and acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and means of\ncommunication.\nSeminole’s procedures did not address liaison with fire, police, and other public officials\nto learn the responsibilities and resources of these organizations nor to acquaint the\nofficials in these organizations with Seminole's ability to respond to a pipeline emergency\nand to acquaint them with Seminole’s communications.\n\n\n\nThat is, while Seminole's HLOMEM Section VII J, PUBLIC EDUCATION (195.440)\naddressed using the Tennessee One-Call’s Partners in Protecting Everyone program to\nmeet with officials and acquaint them with the SMLT facilities, the procedures did not\naddress how Seminole personnel would learn the responsibilities and resources of the\ngovernment organizations or how Seminole would acquaint the officials with Seminole's\nability to respond to a pipeline emergency or acquaint them with Seminole’s\ncommunications.\n2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n… (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n… (13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nSeminole’s procedures did not include procedures covering the periodic review of work\ndone by Seminole or contractor personnel to determine the effectiveness of procedures\nused in maintenance and operations, and for taking corrective action when deficiencies are\nfound.\nThat is, while Seminole's HLOMEM Section VII D, (TRAINING (195.402 AND 403)\nrequired the implementation of a continuing training program that would include\nperiodically reviewing the work done by personnel to determine the effectiveness of\nprocedures and taking corrective action when deficiencies are found, neither the training\nprogram or the HLOMEM had procedures explaining how Seminole would actually\naccomplish these tasks.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n… (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n… (14) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel\nfrom the hazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available\nwhen needed at the excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing\napparatus and, a rescue harness and line.\nSeminole’s HLOMEM procedures for excavation activities did not address the protection\nof personnel in excavated trenches from unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas and making\nrescue equipment available when needed.\n4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n… (d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section\nmust include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design\nlimits have been exceeded:\n(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:\n(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;\n(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating limits;\n(iii) Loss of communications;\n2\n\n\n\n(iv) Operation of any safety device;\n(v) Any other malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or\npersonnel error which could cause a hazard to persons or property.\nSeminole's procedures for responding to, investigating and correcting the cause of an\nabnormal operating condition did not provide clear and consistent guidelines on actions\nthat Seminole personnel would take to respond to, investigate, and correct the cause of an\nabnormal operating condition.\nSeminole’s procedure for abnormal operations provides general and conflicting guidance.\nSection VII, M. Abnormal Operation, of the HLOMEM stated, \"When there is doubt about\npossible injury to personnel or damage to facilities, the Pipeline shall be shut down and\nan inspection performed.” However, in its suggested actions for possible abnormal\noperations, Seminole procedures required contacting the Pipeline Supervisor, monitoring\nthe situation, and other actions; but, the suggested actions did not include the requirements\nto shut down the pipeline and inspect the pipeline to determine the cause of the abnormal\noperating condition.\n5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n… (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must\ninclude procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition\noccurs:\n... (2) Prompt and effective response to a notice of each type emergency, including\nfire or explosion occurring near or directly involving a pipeline facility, accidental\nrelease of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a pipeline facility, operational\nfailure causing a hazardous condition, and natural disaster affecting pipeline\nfacilities.\n… (5) Control of released hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide at an accident scene to\nminimize the hazards, including possible intentional ignition in the cases of\nflammable highly volatile liquid.\nSeminole’s procedures did not provide clear and consistent guidance for personnel to\nrespond to an emergency such as fire or explosion, accidental release of a hazardous\nliquid, operational failure, natural disaster, and controlling the release of a highly volatile\nliquid (HVL).\nSeminole’s emergency response procedures in Section V Emergency Plan of the\nHLOMEM did not provide clear and consistent guidance to personnel on actions to take to\ncontrol a release, and on who has authority to take the actions necessary to control a\nrelease. Section V, A.2 required “... the first employee to become aware of the emergency\nshall take such action as is necessary in their best judgment.” In extreme emergencies, B.2\nrequired “...the employee should contact the Pipeline Supervisor or their designate,\nadvising them of the situation, and they stand-by for further instructions” after obtaining\ninformation on the emergency, and C.1.e required “To minimize the emergency situation,\nconsideration shall be given to closing block valves, initiating emergency shutdown,\npressure reduction and/or preventing/minimizing the release of HVL or other hazardous\nvapors.” The procedures were not clear on what actions an employee is authorized and\nrequired to take in an emergency to control a release.\n3\n\n\n\n6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n… (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must\ninclude procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition\noccurs:\n… (8) In the case of failure of a pipeline system transporting a highly volatile liquid,\nuse of appropriate instruments to assess the extent and coverage of the vapor cloud\nand determine the hazardous areas.\nSeminole’s transports an HVL in its SMLT pipeline but its procedures for verifying the\nextent and coverage of a vapor cloud and hazardous areas did not provide sufficient detail\nfor Seminole personnel to safely make the determinations, if required.\nSeminole's HLOMEM Section V (Emergency Plan), C.2.a stated that Seminole would\ndetermine the extent and coverage of a vapor cloud and hazardous areas using a\nCombustible Gas Indicator (CGI). The procedure did not, however, provide guidance on\nhow Seminole would determine the initial possible extent of the vapor cloud so that\nSeminole personnel could begin to monitor the actual vapor cloud with a CGI safely from\noutside the limits of the vapor cloud. Nor did the procedure explain exactly how Seminole\nwould use a CGI to determine the actual extent and coverage of a vapor cloud and\nhazardous areas.\n7. §195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a) Each operator shall establish and conduct a continuing training program to\ninstruct emergency response personnel to:\n(1) Carry out the emergency procedures established under 195.402 that relate to\ntheir assignments;\nSeminole’s Emergency Response Training Plan did not incorporate a continuing training\nprogram to instruct emergency response personnel to carry out the emergency procedures\nestablished under §195.402 that relate to their assignments.\nSeminole’s Emergency Response Training Plan also did not include performance training\non emergency procedures and it did not clearly designate employees responsible for\ncarrying out emergency response activities. Moreover, while Section I. (E) Employee\nTraining of the Emergency Response Plan makes reference to requirements and periodic\ndrills, it did not list established requirements and training intervals.\n8. §195.403 Emergency response training.\n... (b) At intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\neach operator shall:\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the\nemergency response training program set forth in paragraph (a) of this section; and\nSeminole’s procedures did not require a review of their personnel’s performance in\nmeeting the objectives of their emergency response training program at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nSeminole's HLOMEM Section VII D TRAINING (195.402 AND 403).1.i stated, “At\nintervals not exceeding three (3) years the training program’s effectiveness will be\nreviewed by a review of employee performance.” This procedure states that the\n4\n\n\n\neffectiveness of the training program itself, not the performance of employees, would be\nevaluated by reviewing employee performance. While there is nothing incorrect about\nthis additional requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of the training though employee\nperformance, the regulations specifically require each employee’s performance to be\nevaluated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ndetermine if the employee’s performance met the objectives of the emergency response\ntraining program.\n9. §195.403 Emergency response training.\n... (c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the emergency response procedures established under\n§195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.\nSeminole's procedures did not require that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of\nthe emergency response procedures they are responsible for and that this is verified.\n10. §195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of\nits pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 71⁄2 months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning\nproperly.\nSeminole's procedures for maintaining and inspecting valves did not require that all valves\nnecessary for the safe operation of the pipeline be maintained, and that mainline valves be\ninspected at least twice each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nSeminole's HLOMEM Section VIII B. VALVE MAINTENANCE (195.420) stated, “The\nobjective is to insure safe and proper operation of critical/emergency valves on the\nPipeline.” But, Seminole's procedures did not require that all valves necessary for the\nsafe operation of its pipeline be maintained and, while it required the inspection of\ncritical/emergency valves, it did not identify these valves. That is, Seminole did not\nprovide information on which valves along its pipeline are critical/emergency valves.\n11. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the\ncase of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 71⁄2\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting\ndevice, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment\nto determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nSeminole transports an HVL in its SMLT pipeline but its procedures did not require that\neach relief device be checked for adequate capacity at intervals not to exceed 71⁄2 months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year.\nThat is, Seminole's HLOMEM Section VII G. OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION (195.428)\nincorrectly stated, “Unless a field test to determine relief capacity is shown to be feasible\n5\n\n\n\nand can be performed at one year intervals, [emphasis added] a review and calculation of\nthe required capacity of each relief valve will be made.”\n12. §195.505 Qualifications program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n… (g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividual's qualifications is needed;\nSeminole's Operator Qualification Plan (OQP) did not address the intervals at which\nevaluation of the individual's qualifications is needed.\nSeminole's (OQP) did not adequately address and identify the interval at which\nindividuals would be re-evaluated to perform covered tasks. The Evaluation Methods and\nOngoing Evaluation section of the OQP addressed a risk based method for determining\nre-evaluation intervals for covered tasks, but there were no intervals in this section or in\nthe List of Covered Tasks section of the OQP.\n13. §195.505 Qualifications program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n... (i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the\nprogram after the Administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with\nthis section.\nSeminole's OQP did not include a procedure to notify the Administrator or state agency if\nthe program is significantly modified.\n14. §195.509 General.\n... (e) After December 16, 2004, observation of on-the-job performance may not be\nused as the sole method of evaluation.\nSeminole's OQP did not adequately explain that observation of on-the-job performance\nmay not be used as the sole method of evaluation.\nSeminole's OQP addresses evaluation methods in the Premises and Definitions and the\nEvaluation Methods and Ongoing Evaluation sections and included on-the-job\nperformance as a method of evaluation. However neither section of the OQP explained\nthat observation of on-the-job performance may not be used as the sole method of\nevaluation.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. §190.237.\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the\nresponse options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\n6\n\n\n\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the\nportions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why\nyou believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a\nwaiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the\ninadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice.\nThis period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies\nidentified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action\nwill be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Seminole Gas Company maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Wayne T. Lemoi, Director,\nSouthern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In\ncorrespondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2013-6007M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n7","truncated":false,"body_characters":21787}