{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320131005","title":"TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-05-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.469, 192.937.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320131005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320131005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320131005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320131005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.469,  192.937. The case was opened on 2013-05-02 and is reported as closed as of 2016-07-07. Proposed civil penalty: $41,200. Assessed civil penalty: $41,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320131005_Closure Letter_07072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131005/320131005_Closure%20Letter_07072016.pdf\n\n320131005_Closure Letter_07072016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131005/320131005_Closure%20Letter_07072016_text.pdf\n\n320131005_Final Order_03112015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131005/320131005_Final%20Order_03112015.pdf\n\n320131005_Final Order_03112015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131005/320131005_Final%20Order_03112015_text.pdf\n\n320131005_NOPV PCP PCO_05022013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131005/320131005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05022013.pdf\n\n320131005_NOPV PCP PCO_05022013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131005/320131005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05022013_text.pdf\n\n320131005_NOPV PCP PCO_05022013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 2, 2013\nMr. Theopolis Holeman\nGroup Vice President\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC\n5400 Westheimer Court\nP.O Box 1642\nHouston, Texas 77251-1642\nCPF 3-2013-1005\nDear Mr. Holeman:\nOn August 9-10, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nrecords for Scioto County, Ohio Special Permit Segments in Danville, KY.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that SET has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected\nand the probable violation(s) are:\n1. §192.469 External corrosion control: Test stations.\nEach pipeline under cathodic protection required by this subpart must have\nsufficient test stations or other contact points for electrical measurement to\ndetermine the adequacy of cathodic protection.\n\n\n\nIt appears that SET is in violation of §192.469 for failing to install sufficient test stations or\ncontact points necessary to determine the adequacy of the cathodic protection on Line 10\nand Line 151 of its pipeline.\nSET does maintain records indicating that it conducted annual tests in an attempt to\ndetermine the adequacy of the cathodic protection on Line 10 and Line 15 of its pipeline. A\nreview of SET’s annual test records showed no instances of inadequate cathodic protection\nbeing detected.\nSET performed a close interval survey (CIS) on portions of Line 10 and Line 15, the same\nportions of the pipeline that it previously tested to determine the adequacy of the cathodic\nprotection on the pipeline. The CIS identified numerous locations where the cathodic\nprotection was inadequate. SET’s annual cathodic protection tests did not locate any of\nthese problem areas.\nSET’s regular cathodic protection tests did not locate these problem areas because it failed\nto install enough test stations or contact points to assess the adequacy of its cathodic\nprotection system. While SET has made improvements to its testing system it still is not\nsufficient to properly identify whether the cathodic protection is adequate and in violation\nof §192.469.\n2. §192.937 What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain\na pipeline's integrity?\n(a) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment of a covered\nsegment, an operator must continue to assess the line pipe of that segment at\nthe intervals specified in § 192.939 and periodically evaluate the integrity of\neach covered pipeline segment as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. An\noperator must reassess a covered segment on which a prior assessment is\ncredited as a baseline under § 192.921(e) by no later than December 17, 2009.\nAn operator must reassess a covered segment on which a baseline assessment is\nconducted during the baseline period specified in § 192.921(d) by no later than\nseven years after the baseline assessment of that covered segment unless the\nevaluation under paragraph (b) of this section indicates earlier reassessment.\n(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently\nas needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The periodic\nevaluation must be based on a data integration and risk assessment of the\nentire pipeline as specified in § 192.917. For plastic transmission pipelines, the\nperiodic evaluation is based on the threat analysis specified in § 192.917(d) For\nall other transmission pipelines, the evaluation must consider the past and\npresent integrity assessment results, data integration and risk assessment\ninformation (§ 192.917), and decisions about remediation (§ 192.933) and\nadditional preventive and mitigative actions\n1 Line 10 and Line 15 are located approximately 5.3 miles downstream of the Texas Eastern Wheelersburg\nCompressor Station in Scioto County Ohio and are approximate 720 feet long.\n\n\n\n(§ 192.935). An operator must use the results from this evaluation to identify\nthe threats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented by these\nthreats.\nIt appears that SET is in violation of §192.937 for failing to conduct periodic evaluations to\nassure the integrity of Line 10 and Line 15.\nWhen asked to produce the records showing the evaluations and assessments needed to\nassure the integrity of Line 10 and Line 15 of its pipeline, SET could not comply. SET’s\nmanager for pipeline integrity of the Northeast Region, Roderick Rheume, explained that\nSET could not provide the records because SET had never conducted the evaluations.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 3, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a\nmaximum of $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$41,200 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $28,400\n2 $12,800\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which\nis enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\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 response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made\npublicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not\nrespond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for\n\n\n\nPipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to\nissue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2013-1005 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC, a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In regard to Item Number 1of the Notice pertaining to SET failing to\nestablish sufficient test points to demonstrate adequate cathodic protection,\nSET shall submit a plan and schedule for installation of sufficient test points\nwithin 60 days of the Final Order for Director, Central Region, approval.\nThe installation of the test points shall be completed within 120 days of\nreceiving the Director’s approval and documentation submitted within 30\ndays of completing installation.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to SET failing to\nconduct periodic evaluations to assure the integrity of Line 10 and Line 15,\nSET shall conduct periodic evaluations and the evaluations must consider the\npast and present integrity assessment results, data integration and risk\nassessment information (§192.917), and decisions about remediation\n(§192.933) and additional preventative and mitigative actions (§192.935).\nSET shall provide documentation of evaluations for assuring integrity on\nLine 10 and Line 15 within 30 days of the Final Order to the Director,\nCentral Region.\nIt is requested that SET maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nDavid Barrett, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n320131005_Closure Letter_07072016_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 7, 2016\nMr. Greg Ebel\nPresident – CEO\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, Texas 77056\nCPF 3-2013-1005\nDear Mr. Ebel:\nOn March 11, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC, a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320131005_Final Order_03112015_text.pdf\n\nMarch 11, 2015\nMr. Greg Ebel\nPresident-CEO\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC\n5400 Westheimer Court\nHouston, Texas 77056\nRe: CPF No. 3-2013-1005\nDear Mr. Ebel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $41,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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. Allan Beshore, Central Region Director, OPS\nMr. J. A. (Andy) Drake, P.E., Vice President Operations and EHS,\n5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, TX 77251-1642\nBizunesh Scott, Esq., Counsel for Respondent, Steptoe & Johnson LLP,\n1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036\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)\nSpectra Energy Transmission, LLC ) CPF No. 3-2013-1005\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 9-10, 2011, 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 facilities and records of Spectra Energy\nTransmission, LLC ([SET] or Respondent) in Danville, KY. SET owns and operates over\n22,000 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 2, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that SET had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.469 and 192.937 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $41,200 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSET responded to the Notice by letter dated May 29, 2013 and requested a 30-day extension,\nwhich was granted. On June 21, 2013 Respondent provided its full, initial response to the Notice\n(Response). SET contested one of the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was\nsubsequently held on November 5, 2013, at the Central Region Office in Kansas City, Missouri,\nwith an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing,\nRespondent was represented by counsel. On December 12, 2013, SET submitted its Post\nHearing Brief (Brief) for this case.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.469, which states:\n§ 192.469 -- External corrosion control: Test stations.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 3-2013-1005\nPage 2\nEach pipeline under cathodic protection required by this subpart must\nhave sufficient test stations or other contact points for electrical\nmeasurement to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.469 by failing to have a sufficient\nnumber of cathodic protection test stations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that SET failed to\ninstall sufficient test stations to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection on SET’s Line 10\nand Line 15. SET used its test stations in its annual cathodic protection tests, and the tests\nstations showed no deficiency. However, the Notice stated that when SET performed a close\ninternal survey (CIS) of its cathodic protection along the lines, the CIS identified numerous\nlocations where the cathodic protection was inadequate. The Violation Report states that SET\nperformed a CIS in 2008 and again in 2010. After the 2008 CIS identified cathodic protection\ndeficiencies, SET installed nine new test stations. However, the 2010 CIS continued to show\nareas of deficiency while SET’s test stations continued to show no deficiency. SET did not\nimmediately remediate the situation with installation of new test stations. PHMSA contends that\nmore test stations are needed to determine if cathodic protection is adequate within areas of\nformer low CIS readings.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, SET argued that its test stations are spaced in accordance with\nstandard industry practice, at distances of approximately one mile apart.1 SET argued that CIS is\na best practice, not a regulatory requirement, and is used to improve systems. SET also argued\nthat PHMSA should not discourage operators from performing CISs by making allegations of\nviolation following the results.\n2 SET stated that because CIS is inherently a more accurate\ntesting method and that many of the areas of low protection were short in length, SET argues that\n“no reasonable number of test stations” would be adequate to measure cathodic protection to the\nsame accuracy as a CIS. Therefore, it questioned what it could have done differently to avoid an\nallegation of violation. Finally, SET argued that SET used the CIS results to remediate the low\nreadings and that PHMSA erroneously did not allow any time for full remediation following the\nCIS results and alleged violation based on “Day One” of the low readings.3\nIn response to SET’s arguments, at the hearing and in the Regional Recommendation, PHMSA\nargued that one mile spacing between test stations is not an industry standard but only an\ninformal rule of thumb. PHMSA stated that an operator must space test stations based on the\nconditions of its pipeline, such as the age and type of coating. At the hearing, PHMSA pointed\nout that the pipeline at issue is at least 50 years old and had “antiquated coating.” PHMSA also\nargued that § 192.469 is essentially a performance standard, such that the CIS results showing\ndeficiencies in cathodic protection that the annual tests had not revealed established that the test\nstations were insufficient to determine the adequacy of the cathodic protection.\nIn its Regional Recommendation, PHMSA did not directly address SET’s contention that\nPHMSA did not allow any time for SET to remediate the areas of low potential before alleging a\nviolation. However, at the hearing when SET asked PHMSA how SET could possibly remediate\nin a way that would satisfy PHMSA without installing test stations every five feet, PHMSA\n1 Response at pg. 2. Brief at 3.\n2 Brief at 6.\n3 Brief at 2 and 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 3-2013-1005\nPage 3\nresponded that after SET added some additional test stations following the initial 2008 CIS, SET\nwaited until 2010 to perform another CIS to see if the new stations were adequate. Because the\n2010 CIS still revealed areas of inadequate cathodic protection that had not been identified by\nthe test stations, PHMSA contends that the remediation following the 2008 CIS was ineffective\nand the test stations were inadequate. PHMSA stated that if SET would have acted more quickly\nand had repaired all the areas of deficiency by 2010, PHMSA would likely not have alleged a\nviolation. In the Regional Recommendation, PHMSA agreed that test station placement at five\nfoot intervals was impractical. However, PHMSA recommended that strategically locating test\nstations near remediated rectifier outputs or linear anodes would provide valuable information to\nbetter assure adequate cathodic protection.4\nWhile I understand SET’s contention that cathodic protection test stations can never be as\naccurate as a CIS, I am persuaded that SET should have done more to rectify low levels of\ncathodic protection and determine the adequacy of its remediation through another CIS or other\nmeans, prior to 2010. The results of the 2010 CIS established that the number and placement of\nthe test stations remained inadequate. Although the violation report failed to specify the dates of\nthe 2008 and 2010 CISs, it is clear that more than a year passed from the installation of the new\ntest stations in 2008 until SET attempted to verify its remediation in 2010. For these reasons, I\nam also not persuaded by SET’s claims that it had no opportunity to remediate the deficient\nfindings of the initial 2008 CIS.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.469 by failing to have sufficient test stations or other contact points for electrical\nmeasurement to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, SET did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it\nviolated 49 C.F.R. Part 192.937, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.937 – What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment\nto maintain a pipeline’s integrity?\n(a) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment of a\ncovered segment, an operator must continue to assess the line pipe of that\nsegment at the intervals specified in § 192.939 and periodically evaluate\nthe integrity of each covered pipeline segment as provided in paragraph\n(b) of this section. An operator must reassess a covered segment on which\na prior assessment is credited as a baseline under § 192.921(e) by no later\n4 In a Post Hearing Reply Brief, SET contends that, “[F]or the first time, [the Region now argues] that SET was in\nviolation of 49 CFR 192.469 because it did not place additional test stations in areas where it recently conducted\nremediation specifically by increasing rectifier outputs or installing linear nodes . . .” I disagree that the\nRecommendation says this. The Region maintains that the remediation efforts were inadequate to meet the\nperformance standard set out in the regulation, as established by 2008 and 2010 CIS results. In response to SET’s\narguments that compliance is impossible without placing test stations every five feet, PHMSA gave suggestions\nabout what “would be effective locations” for efficient test station placement. PHMSA does not state that failure to\nplace test stations in these specific locations was the basis for the allegation.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 3-2013-1005\nPage 4\nthan December 17, 2009. An operator must reassess a covered segment on\nwhich a baseline assessment is conducted during the baseline period\nspecified in § 192.921(d) by no later than seven years after the baseline\nassessment of that covered segment unless the evaluation under paragraph\n(b) of this section indicates earlier reassessment.\n(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as\nfrequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The\nperiodic evaluation must be based on a data integration and risk\nassessment of the entire pipeline as specified in § 192.917. For plastic\ntransmission pipelines, the periodic evaluation is based on the threat\nanalysis specified in 192.917(d). For all other transmission pipelines, the\nevaluation must consider the past and present integrity assessment results,\ndata integration and risk assessment information (§ 192.917), and\ndecisions about remediation (§ 192.933) and additional preventive and\nmitigative actions (§ 192.935). An operator must use the results from this\nevaluation to identify the threats specific to each covered segment and the\nrisk represented by these threats.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937 by failing to conduct periodic\nevaluations to assure the integrity of Line 10 and Line 15. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nSET’s manager could not provide records of periodic evaluations of Line 10 and Line 15 during\nthe inspection because SET had never conducted the evaluations. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937 by failing to\nconduct periodic evaluations to assure the integrity of Lines 10 and 15.\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.5 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 $41,200 for the violations cited above.\n5 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)\n(Jan. 3, 2012) increased the maximum penalty for a violation of the pipeline safety standards to $200,000\nper violation for each day, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 3-2013-1005\nPage 5\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,400 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.469, for failing to have sufficient test stations or other contact points for\nelectrical measurement to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection. SET contends that\nPHMSA incorrectly assessed the gravity of the violation when it stated that safety was\n“potentially compromised.” SET also disagrees with PHMSA’s assessment of culpability, and\nSET points out that it made efforts to add test stations based on the 2008 CIS. However, I agree\nwith the Region because the purpose of cathodic protection is to prevent or reduce corrosion. A\nlack of cathodic protection can result in accelerated corrosion and metal loss, which could\n“potentially compromise” safety. Next, in response to SET’s arguments about culpability, I\nremind SET that the violation report acknowledges SETs efforts toward remediation and\naccounts for those initial steps in its penalty calculation. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $28,400 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.469.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.937, for failing to conduct periodic evaluations to assure the integrity of Lines\n10 and 15. SET did not contest this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,800 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.937.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $41,200.\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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $41,200 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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.469 and 192.937 respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant\nto the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take\nthe following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n\n\n\nCPF No: 3-2013-1005\nPage 6\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.469 (Item 1), Respondent must submit a\nplan and schedule for installation of sufficient test points within 60 days of this\nOrder for Director, Central Region approval.\n2. The installation of the test points shall be completed within 120 days of receiving\nthe Director’s approval and documentation submitted within 30 days of\ncompleting installation.\n3. In regard to violation of § 192.937 (Item 2) pertaining to SET failing to conduct\nperiodic evaluations to assure the integrity of Line 10 and Line 15, SET shall\nconduct periodic evaluations and the evaluations must consider the past and\npresent integrity assessment results, data integration and risk assessment\ninformation (§ 192.917), and decisions about remediation (§192.933) and\nadditional preventative and mitigative actions (§192.935).\n4. SET shall provide documentation of evaluations for assuring integrity on Line 10\nand Line 15 within 30 days of the Final Order to Director, Central Region.\n5. It is requested that SET maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director,\nCentral Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories 1.) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and analyses, and 2.) total\ncost associated with the replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a 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 this 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. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 3-2013-1005\nPage 7\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":31513}