{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320020001","title":"DTE GAS COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-11-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(c), 191.9(c), 192.5(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320020001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320020001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320020001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320020001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DTE GAS COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.15(c),  191.9(c),  192.5(a). The case was opened on 2002-11-12 and is reported as closed as of 2004-08-19. Proposed civil penalty: $25,000. Assessed civil penalty: $25,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320020001_Final Order_07282004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320020001/320020001_Final%20Order_07282004.pdf\n\n320020001_Final Order_07282004.pdf\n\nol\nUS Depstnent\nof Tfonsportoltofi\nRcrcorchsrd\nSpacbl Pr,ogfg.n6\nAdrvlrilrtrslbn\nri,U Sevenil' Sl 5 t|i\n',ta5nv1g161 D ':- ?i5-qtll\nJUL 2 8 200f\nMr. Steven E. Kurmas\nSenior Vice President, Gas Operations\nDTE Energy Cas\nMichigan Consolidated Gas Company\n500 Griswold Street\nDetroit. MI 48226\nRe: CPF No. 3-2002-t)001\nDear Mr. Kurmas:\nEnclosed is the Final Ordcr issued by thc Associate Adntinistrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a ciYil penalty of $25.000. The\npenaltypayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payment. Your receipt of thc Final Orderconstitutes sen'icc of that documcnt under49 C'F.R.\n$ r90.5.\nSincerely,\nh r/1\n.l\\\n\\ / -\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Rcgi stry\nOfficc of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure I\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND S PECI-AL PROG RAMS ADM INIS TRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHTNGTON. DC 20590\nln the Matter of\nDTE Energy Gas,\nMichigan Consolidated Gas Company,\nRespondent.\nl\n.l )l\nll\nCPF No. 3-2002-0001\nFINAI. ORDER\nOn July 17, 2002, pursuant to 49 U,S.C. $ 601 I 7. a represcntative of the Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS) initiated an investigation of Respondent's incident reporting involving its pipeline system.\nAs a result of the investigation, thc Dircctor, Central Region, OPS, issued to Respondcnt, by letter\ndated November 12.2M\\ a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Noticc proposed finding that Rcspondent had violatcd\n49 C.F.R. $$ 191.5, 191.9, and l9l.l5 and proposed assessing a civil pcnalty of $25.000 for the\nalleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by lcttcr dated December 5, 2002 (Response). Respondent\ncontcsted the allegation of violation in ltcm I in the Notice, offered information to explain the\nallegation. and requcsted that the proposed civil penalty bc reduced or eliminated. Respondcnt did\nnot contest the violations allcged in Item 2 and ltem 3 in the Notice, but provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it has taken. Respondent ditl not request a hearing and, thereforc,\nhas waived its right to one,\nFTNDINGS OF VIOLATION\nContested Item\nItem I in the Notice alleged that Rcspondent violated 49 C,F.R. $ 191.5 by failing to provide the\nNational Response Center (l.iRC) with telcphonic notification at the earliest practicablc moment\nfollowing discovery of an incident that occurred around 9:23 AM CST on July 16. 2AO2'\nRespondent rcported thc incident to the Michigan Public Scn'ice Commission (MPSC) at\napproximatety i O:aS AM on July 16, 2002, but did not report the incidcnt to the NRC until 3:23 PM\nthe ncxt day, approximately 30 hours afler the incident.\n\n\n\n2\nA contractor for the city struck Respondent's three-inch high density polyethylene distribution line\n(main) in Detroit, Michigan at approximately 9:23 AM on July 16, 2002. The contractor struck the\nmain while boring, resulting in the release of gas which ignited and set fire to the main and\nsurrounding equipment. Respondent's personnel arrived at the site of the incident at 9:48 AM and\nstopped the gas flowing to the burning main at approximately 1:27 PM. The fires were extinguished\nshortly after the gas flow was stopped. MPSC personnel arrived at approximately 2:00 PM. The\ndamage immediately visible to MPSC personnel included the burned main, burned portions of the\ncontractor's truck-mounted auguring equipment, melted traffic control barrels, and singed\nsurrounding trees.\nWhile Respondent reported to the MPSC within 2 hours of the incident, it did not to report to the\nNRC until approximately 30 hours latcr. In its Response, Respondent stated it immediately\ndetermined the incident met the MPSC reporting criteria of $10,000 or more property damage but\nthat OPS reporting thresholds were not triggered until July 17 because \"(i]nformation was not readily\navailable immediately after the incident to decide if the DOT reporting criteria would be met.\"\nRespondent explained that it realized estimated property damage would exceed $50,000 after\ninterviewing contractor personnel on July 17. Respondent contested the allegation of violation\nbecause it \"believe[d] it notified [the NRC] of the incident immediately after concluding that the\nestimated property damage criteria was met.….\"\nThe pipeline safety regulations require reporting at the carliest practicable moment after discovery\nof an incident—-not after fully investigating the extent of property damage because of the time-\nsensitive safety and response coordination functions that incident reporting serves. Reporting must\nbe done promptly to ensure timely response from local and national officials and reduction of risk\nto public safety and the environment. Accordingly, OPS has historically construed the telephonic\nincident reporting regulations to require an incident that could potentially meet the reporting criteria\nto be reported within one to two hours after the pipeline operator first becomes aware of its\noccurrence: All pipeline operators were formally notified of the two-hour time frame for telephonic\nincident reporting through an Alert Notice published on April 15, 1991 (ALN-91-01). The Alert\nNotice, while not itself a basis for a violation, provided pipeline operators with explicit guidance on\nthe manner in which reporting requirements would be enforced. Thus, operators were made aware\nofOPS's interpretation of\" earliest practicable moment\" and the need to exercise diligence in making\nreporting determinations.\nBased on the totality of the evidence, Respondent does not appear to have reported to tic NRC at\nthe earliest practicable moment. There is no evidence that Respondent was prevented from gathering\ninformation to estimate property damage shortly after the incident on July 16. Access to the incident\nsite was not blocked off, Respondent's personnel were at the incident site within minutes of the\nincident, and the contractor personnel that struck the main were contemporaneously present and\navailable for interview. Furthering the applicability of the two-hour time frame to the facts of this\ncase, the definition of \"incident\" in § 191.3 requires operators to estimate property damage, not\nascertain a definitive dollar amount of property damage. However, even ignoring Respondent's\nnotice of the two-hour practicability time frame from ALN-91-01, Respondent did not exercise\n\n\n\n3\ndiligence in estimating property damage for reporting purposes by choosing to rvait until the day after\nthe incident to gather important and relevant information. Therefore, Respondent did not\ntelephonically report the incident on July 16, 2002 to thc NRC at the earliest practicable moment.\nFor the foregoing reasons, I find that Respontlent violated 49 C.F.R. rs l9 | .5.\nUncontested ltems\nln its Response, Respondent did not contest the violations alleged in Items 2 and 3 of the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violatcd thc follorving sections of 49 C'.F.R. Part l!)1, as more\nfully described in the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. $ 191.9 -- failing to submit timely DOT RSPA Form 7100.1 rvritten reports\nfollowing telephonic reporting of three incidents involving Respondent's gas distribution\npipclinc systcm that occurred on November 30, 2001, June 28, 2002, and July 16,2002.\nRespondent submitted written reports for all of these incidents on September 19,2002, a\nminimum of approximately 34 days over the 3O-day submission deadline and a maximum\nof approximatcly 263 days over the deadline; and\n49 C.F.R. $ l9l.l5 -- failing to submit timely a DOT RSPA Form 7100.2 written report\nfollowing telephonic reporting of an incidcnt involving Respondent's ga-s transmission\npipe line system that occuned on Deccmber 12, 2001 . Respondent submitted a written report\nforthis incident on September l6, 2002, approximately 247 days aftcr the 30-daysubmission\ndeadline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subscquent enforcement action\ntakcn against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceetl $100,000 per\nviolation for each dayof the violation up to a maximum of SI,000,000 for any'relatcd series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. $ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in detcrmining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: naturc, circumstances, and gravity of the I'iolation, degrcc\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Rcspondent's prior offenses, Respondcnt's ability to pay the\npenatty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Rcspondent's\nability to continuc in business, and such other maners as justice may require. Thc Notice proposcd\na total civil penalty of $25,000 for the violations.\nTelqrhonic incident reports and written follow-up reports are crucial to fulfilling the OPS mission\nof ensuring public and environmcntal safety. Failure to telcphonically report incidents in a timely\n\n\n\n4\nfashion significantly affects local and national response to pipeline incidents and can put the public\nand environment at risk. Failure to file written follow-up reports within 30 days of telephonic\nreporting deprives OPS of information on the status of incident response and changes, additions, or\ncorrections to data that was originally supplied with the telephonic repor. Furthermore, incident\nreporting is critical to determine nationwide trends in pipeline incidents.\nI have determined that Respondent has no financial circumstances that would prevent it from paying\nthe penalty amounts assessed below and that Respondent's ability to continue in business will not\nbe significantly affected.\nHaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess a total penalty of\n$25,000 which reflects $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, $15,000 for three instances of\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.9, and $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15.\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 Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $25,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. $ 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermorc, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be reccived within 20 days of Respondent's reccipt of this Final\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payment for the\ncivil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective. on receipt.\nA Hordal..\n?/2E/01\nStacey Gerard\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12302}