# PINE PRAIRIE ENERGY CENTER LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320181006_Final Order_06272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_Final%20Order_06272019.pdf

320181006_Final Order_06272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_Final%20Order_06272019_text.pdf

320181006_NOPV PCP_11282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_NOPV%20PCP_11282018.pdf

320181006_NOPV PCP_11282018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_NOPV%20PCP_11282018_text.pdf

320181006_Operator Response to Notice_01092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181006/320181006_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01092019.pdf

320181006_Final Order_06272019_text.pdf

June 27, 2019
Mr. Willie Chiang
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Plains All American Pipeline, LP
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 3-2018-1006
Dear Mr. Chiang:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
PAA Natural Gas Storage, LLC. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of
$109,400. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire
transfer, dated January 16, 2019. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Dean Gore, Vice President, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance, Plains All
American Pipeline, LP, 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77002
Mr. Kevin Fletcher, President and CEO, WEC Energy Group, 231 W. Michigan Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
________________________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
PAA Natural Gas Storage, LLC, )
a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, )
Respondent. )
________________________________________________)
) CPF No. 3-2018-1006
FINAL ORDER
From September 19 through 23, 2016, and October 18 through 20, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
§ 60117, representatives of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MIPSC), acting as an
interstate agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities
and records of PAA Natural Gas Storage’s (Respondent or Plains) Bluewater facility in
Columbus, Michigan.1 Plains is a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP.2 On June 30,
2017, approximately seven months after the MIPSC inspection, Plains sold its Bluewater natural
gas storage facility to WEC Energy Group, Inc.3
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had
committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of
$109,400 for the alleged violations.
Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated January 9, 2019 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $109,400 by wire
transfer on January 16, 2019. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment
authorizes the Associate Administrator to make findings of violation and to issue this final order
without further proceedings.
1 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, US SEC Form 10-K, available at
http://www.edgarexplorer.com/EFX dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=LAo3UncwYyg1iwc&ID=13
256218 (last accessed April 12, 2019).
2 Id. at Exhibit 21.1.
3 Id. at F-58.



CPF 3-2018-1006
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Plains did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
192, as follows:
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states in
relevant part:
§ 192.603 General provisions.
(a) ….
(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the
procedures established under § 192.605.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records
necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Plains failed to keep records needed to review employee activities to determine
whether the procedures were followed in an emergency. The Notice also alleged that Plains
failed to keep records of leak surveys required by its O&M Procedure 467 when a shorted casing
cannot be cleared.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep
records necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a), which states:
§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.
Leakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However,
in the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with
§ 192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector
equipment must be conducted—
(a) In class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct
leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains did not conduct a leakage survey in a Class 3 area of
its pipeline segment, west of Big Hand Road and east of Bauman Road, at least twice a year from
2013-2015. The Notice also alleged that the Class 3 locations on Plains’ Kimball pipeline
exceeded the 7½ month maximum interval twice between 2014 and 2016.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct
leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.



CPF 3-2018-1006
Page 3
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2), which states:
§ 192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.
(a) ….
(b) Except when shutdown of the system is necessary for maintenance
under paragraph (c) of this section, each gas detection and alarm system
required by this section must-
(1) Continuously monitor the compressor building for a concentration
of gas in air of not more than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit; and
(2) If that concentration of gas is detected, warn persons about to enter
the building and person inside the building on the danger.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2) by failing to have a
device that could warn people about to enter a compressor building that a concentration of gas in
the air of greater than or equal to 25 percent of the lower explosive level was detected.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that the north side of Plains’ Kimball compressor station had
three doors for ingress and egress, but there was no gas indicator light visible from that side of
the building.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2) by failing to have a
device that could warn people about to enter a compressor building that a concentration of gas in
the air of greater than or equal to 25 percent of the lower explosive level was detected.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.917(b) which states:
§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and
use the threat identification in its integrity program?
(a) ….
(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the
potential threats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and
integrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be
relevant to the covered segment. In performing this data gathering and
integration, an operator must follow the requirements in ASME/ANSI
B31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the
set of data specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider
both on the covered segment and similar non-covered segments, past
incident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,
patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records and all
other conditions specific to each pipeline.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to consider past
incident history when identifying and evaluating the potential threats to its covered pipeline
segment as part of risk ranking the line segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains
incorrectly noted in its December 2015 Risk Analysis data that the Ray to Marysville line did not
have any third party damage failures or incorrect operations failures. The Notice alleged that



CPF 3-2018-1006
Page 4
Plains had third party damage from a tiling contract on this line in June 2014, and a subsequent
rupture at the Vector Compressor Station due to incorrect operations also in June 2014.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to consider
past incident history when identifying and evaluating the potential threats to its covered pipeline
segment as part of risk ranking the line segment.
Item 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d), which states:
§ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?
An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection.
(a) ….
(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed
and used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment
plan and integrity management program. Documents include those
developed and used in support of any identification, calculation,
amendment, modification, justification, deviation and determination made,
and any action taken to implement and evaluate any of the program
elements;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain
documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed and used to implement and
evaluate each element of the integrity management program. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Plains could not provide any documentation for the following:
1) How Plains identifies its high consequence areas (HCA);
2) Potential impact radius calculations for identified HCA areas;
3) All preventative and mitigative measures that must be considered, specifically,
measures to address third party damage on its 20-inch Ray to Marysville line; and
4) Performance measures and data on the history of its integrity management plan.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain
documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed and used to implement and
evaluate each element of the integrity management program.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



CPF 3-2018-1006
Page 5
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $109,400 for the violations cited above.
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.603(b), for failing to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established
under § 192.605. Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,900
for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b).
Item 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.706(a), for failing to conduct leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year. Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any
evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $40,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a).
Item 9: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.736(b)(2), for failing to have a gas detection and alarm system that could warn people
about to enter the compressor building that a concentration of gas of greater than or equal to 25
percent of the lower explosive level was detected. Plains neither contested the allegation nor
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed
penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $24,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(2).
Item 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $ 18,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.917(b), for failing to consider past incident history when identifying and evaluating
the potential threats to its covered pipeline segment as part of risk ranking the line segment.
Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a
reduction in or the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.917(b).
4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,
83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).



CPF 3-2018-1006
Page 6
Item 12: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $13,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.947(d), for failing to maintain documents to support any decision, analysis and
process developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity
management program. Plains neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$13,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $109,400, which amount was paid
in full by wire transfer on January 16, 2019.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Parts 191
and 192 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these
are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 191.17(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to submit an
annual report on DOT Form PHMSA 7100.2.1. Specifically, Respondent
allegedly failed to submit accurate annual reports in 2014, 2015, and 2016.
49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow the
applicable requirements of NFPA 70 in the compression room of Kimball
Compressor station, and in the building at Vector Booster Station.
49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to clean and coat
several pipe nipples and other small components at Columbus Compressor Station
and Kimball Compressor Station.
49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each
cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power source six times
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months, to ensure that it
is operating. Specifically, Respondent allegedly failed to inspect five rectifiers
within the maximum 2½ month interval.
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
procedures as specified in its O&M Manual for class location surveys that are
required by § 192.605(e) and § 192.613(a). Specifically, Respondent allegedly
failed to conduct a class location survey once each calendar year, at intervals not
exceeding 15 months.



CPF 3-2018-1006
Page 7
49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(2)(ii) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to correctly
establish the maximum allowable operating pressure after it hydrostatically tested
the Vector/MichCon 20-inch pipeline in 2014.
49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect and
partially operate, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each
calendar year, each transmission line valve that might be required during an
emergency. Specifically, Respondent allegedly failed to include blowdown
valves as mainline valve during its annual valve inspection. In addition,
Respondent allegedly failed to partially or fully operate valves, BVM-1 and
BVM-2, in 2013.
If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
June 27, 2019
___________________________________ _________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 19713