{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220175007","title":"PRODUCTS (SE) PIPE LINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-12-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(h)(1), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(l)(1)(ii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220175007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220175007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220175007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220175007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PRODUCTS (SE) PIPE LINE CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(h)(1),  195.452(h)(2),  195.452(l)(1)(ii). The case was opened on 2017-12-21 and is reported as closed as of 2018-07-24. Proposed civil penalty: $28,800. Assessed civil penalty: $28,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220175007_Final Order_07242018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175007/220175007_Final%20Order_07242018.pdf\n\n220175007_Final Order_07242018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175007/220175007_Final%20Order_07242018_text.pdf\n\n220175007_NOPV_PCP_12212017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175007/220175007_NOPV_PCP_12212017.pdf\n\n220175007_NOPV_PCP_12212017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175007/220175007_NOPV_PCP_12212017_text.pdf\n\n220175007_Operator Response to Notice_01082018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175007/220175007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01082018.pdf\n\n220175007_Final Order_07242018_text.pdf\n\nJuly 24, 2018\nMr. James Holland\nPresident – Products Pipelines\nPlantation Pipe Line Company\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 100\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 2-2017-5007\nDear Mr. Holland:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $28,800. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated January 10, 2018. This enforcement action is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\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_______________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPlantation Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 2-2017-5007\na subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_______________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 9 through December 16, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC), as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plantation Pipe Line Company (PPL\nor Respondent), in Richmond, Virginia. PPL, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,\nLP, is a refined-petroleum products pipeline operator in the United States that delivers gasoline,\njet fuel, diesel and biodiesel through its approximately 3,100-mile pipeline network in eight\nStates, running from near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to the Northern Virginia area near\nWashington, D.C.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 21, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that PPL had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $28,800 for the alleged\nviolation. The warning item required no further action, but warned the operator to correct a\nprobable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nPPL responded to the Notice by letter dated January 8, 2018 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegation of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $28,800 by wire transfer\ndated January 10, 2018. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes\nthe Associate Administrator to make a finding of violation and to issue this final order without\nfurther proceedings.\n1 https://www.kindermorgan.com/pages/business/products_pipelines/plantation.aspx (last accessed May 7, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5007\nPage 2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, PPL did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas..\n(a) …\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions,\nan operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that\ncould reduce a pipeline’s integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate\nthat the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to\npose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must\ncomply with § 195.422 when making a repair.\n(2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an\noperator has adequate information about the condition to determine that the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An\noperator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that\ndetermination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period\nis impracticable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) by failing to promptly, but\nno later than 180 days after an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about identified\nanomalous conditions to determine whether the conditions presented potential threats to the\nintegrity of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on October 12, 2015, PPL received\nthe in-line inspection (ILI) vendor’s Final Report of an April 16, 2015 integrity assessment\nperformed on Respondent’s 12-inch-14W Richmond Junction to Newington Station line, 179\ndays after the assessment.\nAdditionally, the Notice alleged that the company’s ILI vendor provided PPL with a Corrected\nFinal Report on March 1, 2016, 320 days after the assessment. This Corrected Final Report\nidentified 45 180-day conditions. At the time of the inspection, PPL indicated that it had not\ndiscovered the 45 identified conditions until March 4, 2016, which was 323 days after the\nassessment, or 143 days beyond the allowable 180-day discovery period. Moreover, the Notice\nalleged that PPL did not demonstrate to the VA SCC inspectors that the 180-day period for\ndiscovery of the 45 identified conditions was impracticable.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) by failing to promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment, obtain sufficient information about identified conditions to determine whether the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5007\nPage 3\nconditions presented potential threats to the integrity of the pipeline, or to demonstrate that the\n180-day period was impracticable.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.2 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; and any effect\nthat 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 $28,800 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h), for failing to promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity assessment,\nobtain sufficient information about identified anomalous conditions to determine whether the\nconditions presented potential threats to the integrity of the pipeline, or to demonstrate that the\n180-day period was impracticable. PPL neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in, or elimination of, the proposed penalty. The\nviolation was an activities violation discovered by VA SCC, and occurred in a high consequence\narea. Although PPL failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement that was\nclearly applicable, PPL provided a reasonable explanation for the violation. Specifically, PPL\nstated that the intent was to have adequate information available in order to meet the 180-day\nperiod, but various compounding delays not entirely within PPL’s control had led to an oversight\nof the regulatory requirement.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for Item 1, I\nassess Respondent a total civil penalty of $28,800, which amount has already been paid by\nRespondent by wire transfer dated January 10, 2018.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5007\nPage 4\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\ndocuments to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications,\njustifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken,\nthat would explain why meeting the 180-day period of discovery following an\nintegrity assessment was impracticable, as required by § 195.452(h)(2).\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nJuly 24, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11061}