{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320111007","title":"GUARDIAN PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-04-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.709(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320111007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving GUARDIAN PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.709(c). The case was opened on 2011-04-25 and is reported as closed as of 2012-01-09. Proposed civil penalty: $35,200. Assessed civil penalty: $35,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320111007_FinalOrder_12142011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111007/320111007_FinalOrder_12142011.pdf\n\n320111007_FinalOrder_12142011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111007/320111007_FinalOrder_12142011_text.pdf\n\n320111007_NOPV PCP_04252011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111007/320111007_NOPV%20PCP_04252011.pdf\n\n320111007_NOPV PCP_04252011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111007/320111007_NOPV%20PCP_04252011_text.pdf\n\n320111007_Operator Response Notice_05232011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111007/320111007_Operator%20Response%20Notice_05232011.pdf\n\n320111007_FinalOrder_12142011_text.pdf\n\nDEC 14 2011\nMr. John W. Gibson\nPresident and CEO\nONEOK Partners, L.P.\n100 West Fifth Street\nTulsa, OK 74103\nRe: CPF No. 3-2011-1007\nDear Mr. Gibson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $35,200. 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. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA\nMr. Dave Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED[71791000164202978903]\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)\n)\nONEOK Partners, L.P., ) CPF No. 3-2011-1007\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween April 26-30, 2010, 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 inspection of the facilities and records of the Guardian Pipeline in Channahon,\nIllinois. The 143-mile transmission pipeline is owned by ONEOK Partners, L.P., and operated\nby ONEOK Partners GP LLC (collectively, ONEOK or Respondent). The Guardian line\ntransports natural gas from Joliet, Illinois, to Ixonia, Wisconsin.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 25, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that ONEOK had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) and assessing a civil penalty of $35,200 for the alleged\nviolations.\nONEOK responded to the Notice by letter dated May 23, 2011 (Response). The company\ncontested one of the items and offered additional information in support of its request to reduce\nthe civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ONEOK did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n1 http://www.gpl.oneokpartners.com/ (last visited September 6, 2011).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission lines\nfor the periods specified:\n(a) . . .\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by\nsubparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until the\nnext patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to produce annual\ninspection records for the inspection and testing of the domestic odorizer at the Channahon,\nIllinois compressor station for calendar years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Pursuant to §192.625 (f), a\nrequirement of subpart L, operators are required to conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases to assure the proper concentration of odorant. ONEOK’s procedure, entitled “Odorization\nof Gas,” requires that odorizers be tested once a year and 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) requires that\nrecords of these tests be retained for five years or until the next test occurred. However, during\nthe OPS inspection, Respondent could not produce test records for the D7i odorizer for calendar\nyears 2007, 2008, and 2009.\nIn its Response, ONEOK acknowledged that it could not produce these records during the\ninspection, but contended that the odorizer was inspected and tested after the inspection and\nprovided these records in its Response. Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain a record for five years for\neach test required by Subparts L and M.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), as quoted above,\nby failing to produce inspection records for the annual testing of the discharge pressure\ntransmitter located at the Channahon, Illinois compressor station. Pursuant to § 192.731(c), a\nrequirement of subpart M, an operator is required to inspect and test each remote control\nshutdown device at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ndetermine that it functions properly. During the OPS inspection, ONEOK could not produce the\nrequired records for calendar years 2007, 2008, and 2009. ONEOK's operating procedure,\n“OKSops3.030.301 - Remote Control Shutdown Devices, Inspection, Maintenance, and\nCalibration,\" requires annual testing and calibration of station shutdown instrumentation and\ndevices.\nIn its Response, ONEOK stated that it had indeed produced records for the required tests for\ncalendar years 2008 and 2009. The company acknowledged that it could not locate the records\nfor 2007, but stated that it believed the test had been completed.\nI have reviewed the records submitted by ONEOK as part of its Response. Both records indicate\nthat the tests were scheduled to start on June 5, 2008, and June 5, 2009, respectively; however,\nthere is no detail in the record documenting the actual test or calibration. The purpose of\nretaining these records is to demonstrate that the tests did in fact occur. However, these records\ndo not confirm the condition of the discharge pressure transmitter before or after the test.\n\n\n\n3\nThe 2009 record lists the transmitter as “OK,” while the 2008 record is completely blank in\nterms of comments or a description of the condition of the device. Because these records cannot\nestablish that the test was indeed conducted and that the device was determined to be in working\norder, I cannot withdraw this violation. In addition, as ONEOK has acknowledged, it could not\nproduce the 2007 records either during the inspection or in its Response. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by\nfailing to maintain a record for five years for each test required by Subparts L and M.\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\n49 U.S.C. § 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 $35,200 for the violations in Items 1 and 2.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c),\nfor Respondent’s failure to retain records of odorization tests for calendar years 2007, 2008, and\n2009. As noted above, I found that the company was unable to produce records for the\ninspection and testing of the domestic odorizer at the Channahon compressor station for those\nyears. The proposed civil penalty is based on the assessment factors listed in\n49 C.F.R. § 190.225. I would note that the proposed civil penalty is lower than many other\npenalties on account of the fact that it was a records violation, as opposed to a more substantive\nviolation. The evidence shows that ONEOK was cognizant of the requirement to maintain\nrecords for tests required under Subpart L and M but failed to do so. Respondent has not\npresented any valid basis for a reduction in the penalty amount. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe civil penalty assessment factors and the evidence presented in this case, I assess Respondent\na civil penalty of $17,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c),\nfor Respondent’s failure to retain records of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 testing of the discharge\npressure transmitter at the Channahon compressor station. As noted above, I found that\nRespondent had inadequate or nonexistent records for those years. ONEOK requested a penalty\nreduction based on the fact that it was able to produce some form of records for 2008 and 2009.\nHowever, these records were so minimal that it was impossible to tell whether any testing was\nactually performed.\n\n\n\n4\nThe proposed civil penalty is based on the assessment factors listed in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225. As\nnoted in Item 1 above, the $17,600 proposed civil penalty is lower than many other penalties on\naccount of the fact that it was a records violation, as opposed to a more substantive violation.\nDespite its reduced gravity, the violation involves a discharge pressure transmitter that serves as\nthe primary shut-down device at the compressor station. It is essential for safety that the\ntransmitter be properly tested on a regular basis and that the tests are fully documented.\nONEOK was cognizant of the requirement to maintain records for tests required under Subpart\nL and M but failed to do so. Respondent has not presented any valid basis for a reduction in the\npenalty amount. Accordingly, having reviewed the civil penalty assessment factors and the\nevidence presented in this case, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $17,600 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\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.\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":13237}