{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320181006","title":"PINE PRAIRIE ENERGY CENTER LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-11-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.17(a), 192.163(e), 192.465(b), 192.479(a), 192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.619(a)(2)(ii), 192.706(a), 192.736(b)(2), 192.745(a), 192.917(b), 192.947(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320181006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320181006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320181006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320181006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PINE PRAIRIE ENERGY CENTER LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.17(a),  192.163(e),  192.465(b),  192.479(a),  192.603(b),  192.605(a),  192.619(a)(2)(ii),  192.706(a),  192.736(b)(2),  192.745(a),  192.917(b),  192.947(d). The case was opened on 2018-11-28 and is reported as closed as of 2019-06-27. Proposed civil penalty: $109,400. Assessed civil penalty: $109,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320181006_Final Order_06272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_Final%20Order_06272019.pdf\n\n320181006_Final Order_06272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_Final%20Order_06272019_text.pdf\n\n320181006_NOPV PCP_11282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_NOPV%20PCP_11282018.pdf\n\n320181006_NOPV PCP_11282018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_NOPV%20PCP_11282018_text.pdf\n\n320181006_Operator Response to Notice_01092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01092019.pdf\n\n320181006_Final Order_06272019_text.pdf\n\nJune 27, 2019\nMr. Willie Chiang\nChief Executive Officer and Director\nPlains All American Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 3-2018-1006\nDear Mr. Chiang:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nPAA Natural Gas Storage, LLC. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$109,400. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire\ntransfer, dated January 16, 2019. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Dean Gore, Vice President, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance, Plains All\nAmerican Pipeline, LP, 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77002\nMr. Kevin Fletcher, President and CEO, WEC Energy Group, 231 W. Michigan Street,\nMilwaukee, Wisconsin 53203\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 )\n)\n)\nPAA Natural Gas Storage, LLC, )\na subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 3-2018-1006\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom September 19 through 23, 2016, and October 18 through 20, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, representatives of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MIPSC), acting as an\ninterstate agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities\nand records of PAA Natural Gas Storage’s (Respondent or Plains) Bluewater facility in\nColumbus, Michigan.1 Plains is a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP.2 On June 30,\n2017, approximately seven months after the MIPSC inspection, Plains sold its Bluewater natural\ngas storage facility to WEC Energy Group, Inc.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated November 28, 2018, 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 Plains had\ncommitted five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$109,400 for the alleged violations.\nPlains responded to the Notice by letter dated January 9, 2019 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $109,400 by wire\ntransfer on January 16, 2019. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator to make findings of violation and to issue this final order\nwithout further proceedings.\n1 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, US SEC Form 10-K, available at\nhttp://www.edgarexplorer.com/EFX dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=LAo3UncwYyg1iwc&ID=13\n256218 (last accessed April 12, 2019).\n2 Id. at Exhibit 21.1.\n3 Id. at F-58.\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1006\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Plains did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the\nprocedures established under § 192.605.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records\nnecessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Plains failed to keep records needed to review employee activities to determine\nwhether the procedures were followed in an emergency. The Notice also alleged that Plains\nfailed to keep records of leak surveys required by its O&M Procedure 467 when a shorted casing\ncannot be cleared.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep\nrecords necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a), which states:\n§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However,\nin the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with\n§ 192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector\nequipment must be conducted—\n(a) In class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct\nleakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Plains did not conduct a leakage survey in a Class 3 area of\nits pipeline segment, west of Big Hand Road and east of Bauman Road, at least twice a year from\n2013-2015. The Notice also alleged that the Class 3 locations on Plains’ Kimball pipeline\nexceeded the 7½ month maximum interval twice between 2014 and 2016.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct\nleakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1006\nPage 3\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2), which states:\n§ 192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.\n(a) ….\n(b) Except when shutdown of the system is necessary for maintenance\nunder paragraph (c) of this section, each gas detection and alarm system\nrequired by this section must-\n(1) Continuously monitor the compressor building for a concentration\nof gas in air of not more than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit; and\n(2) If that concentration of gas is detected, warn persons about to enter\nthe building and person inside the building on the danger.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2) by failing to have a\ndevice that could warn people about to enter a compressor building that a concentration of gas in\nthe air of greater than or equal to 25 percent of the lower explosive level was detected.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the north side of Plains’ Kimball compressor station had\nthree doors for ingress and egress, but there was no gas indicator light visible from that side of\nthe building.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2) by failing to have a\ndevice that could warn people about to enter a compressor building that a concentration of gas in\nthe air of greater than or equal to 25 percent of the lower explosive level was detected.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.917(b) which states:\n§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and\nuse the threat identification in its integrity program?\n(a) ….\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the\npotential threats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and\nintegrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be\nrelevant to the covered segment. In performing this data gathering and\nintegration, an operator must follow the requirements in ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the\nset of data specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider\nboth on the covered segment and similar non-covered segments, past\nincident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,\npatrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records and all\nother conditions specific to each pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to consider past\nincident history when identifying and evaluating the potential threats to its covered pipeline\nsegment as part of risk ranking the line segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains\nincorrectly noted in its December 2015 Risk Analysis data that the Ray to Marysville line did not\nhave any third party damage failures or incorrect operations failures. The Notice alleged that\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1006\nPage 4\nPlains had third party damage from a tiling contract on this line in June 2014, and a subsequent\nrupture at the Vector Compressor Station due to incorrect operations also in June 2014.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to consider\npast incident history when identifying and evaluating the potential threats to its covered pipeline\nsegment as part of risk ranking the line segment.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d), which states:\n§ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?\nAn operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records\nthat demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At\nminimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review\nduring an inspection.\n(a) ….\n(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed\nand used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment\nplan and integrity management program. Documents include those\ndeveloped and used in support of any identification, calculation,\namendment, modification, justification, deviation and determination made,\nand any action taken to implement and evaluate any of the program\nelements;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain\ndocuments to support any decision, analysis and process developed and used to implement and\nevaluate each element of the integrity management program. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Plains could not provide any documentation for the following:\n1) How Plains identifies its high consequence areas (HCA);\n2) Potential impact radius calculations for identified HCA areas;\n3) All preventative and mitigative measures that must be considered, specifically,\nmeasures to address third party damage on its 20-inch Ray to Marysville line; and\n4) Performance measures and data on the history of its integrity management plan.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain\ndocuments to support any decision, analysis and process developed and used to implement and\nevaluate each element of the integrity management program.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1006\nPage 5\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.4 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $109,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.603(b), for failing to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established\nunder § 192.605. Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,900\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b).\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.706(a), for failing to conduct leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year. Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $40,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a).\nItem 9: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.736(b)(2), for failing to have a gas detection and alarm system that could warn people\nabout to enter the compressor building that a concentration of gas of greater than or equal to 25\npercent of the lower explosive level was detected. Plains neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $24,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2).\nItem 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $ 18,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.917(b), for failing to consider past incident history when identifying and evaluating\nthe potential threats to its covered pipeline segment as part of risk ranking the line segment.\nPlains neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a\nreduction in or the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.917(b).\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,\n83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1006\nPage 6\nItem 12: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $13,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.947(d), for failing to maintain documents to support any decision, analysis and\nprocess developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity\nmanagement program. Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$13,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d).\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 $109,400, which amount was paid\nin full by wire transfer on January 16, 2019.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Parts 191\nand 192 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these\nare considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 191.17(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to submit an\nannual report on DOT Form PHMSA 7100.2.1. Specifically, Respondent\nallegedly failed to submit accurate annual reports in 2014, 2015, and 2016.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow the\napplicable requirements of NFPA 70 in the compression room of Kimball\nCompressor station, and in the building at Vector Booster Station.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to clean and coat\nseveral pipe nipples and other small components at Columbus Compressor Station\nand Kimball Compressor Station.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\ncathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power source six times\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months, to ensure that it\nis operating. Specifically, Respondent allegedly failed to inspect five rectifiers\nwithin the maximum 2½ month interval.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nprocedures as specified in its O&M Manual for class location surveys that are\nrequired by § 192.605(e) and § 192.613(a). Specifically, Respondent allegedly\nfailed to conduct a class location survey once each calendar year, at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1006\nPage 7\n49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(2)(ii) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to correctly\nestablish the maximum allowable operating pressure after it hydrostatically tested\nthe Vector/MichCon 20-inch pipeline in 2014.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect and\npartially operate, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each\ncalendar year, each transmission line valve that might be required during an\nemergency. Specifically, Respondent allegedly failed to include blowdown\nvalves as mainline valve during its annual valve inspection. In addition,\nRespondent allegedly failed to partially or fully operate valves, BVM-1 and\nBVM-2, in 2013.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 27, 2019\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":19713}