{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320196003","title":"TARGA RESOURCES OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-09-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 194.107(c)(1)(ix), 195.264(a), 195.264(b)(1)(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320196003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320196003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320196003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320196003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TARGA RESOURCES OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 194.107(c)(1)(ix),  195.264(a),  195.264(b)(1)(i). The case was opened on 2019-09-26 and is reported as closed as of 2020-06-03. Proposed civil penalty: $22,800. Assessed civil penalty: $22,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320196003_Closure Letter_06032020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_Closure%20Letter_06032020.pdf\n\n320196003_Closure Letter_06032020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_Closure%20Letter_06032020_text.pdf\n\n320196003_Final Order_04242020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_Final%20Order_04242020.pdf\n\n320196003_Final Order_04242020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_Final%20Order_04242020_text.pdf\n\n320196003_NOPV PCP PCO_09262019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09262019.pdf\n\n320196003_NOPV PCP PCO_09262019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09262019_text.pdf\n\n320196003_Operator Response to Notice (REVISED)_02042020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20(REVISED)_02042020.pdf\n\n320196003_Operator Response to Notice_10252019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320196003/320196003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10252019.pdf\n\n320196003_Closure Letter_06032020_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: and gjohnson@targaresources.com\nmmeloy@targaresources.com , jpabon@targaresources.com\nJune 3, 2020\nMr. Matthew J. Meloy\nChief Executive Officer\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC\n811 Louisiana, Suite 2100\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRE: CPF 3-2019-6003\nDear Mr. Meloy:\nOn April 24, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) issued to\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC a Final Order in the above referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined\nthat you have complied with the terms of the 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\nCopy:\nJulie Pabon, Associate General Counsel & Director, Targa Resources\nGregg Johnson, Director of Pipeline Compliance, Targa Resources\n\n320196003_Final Order_04242020_text.pdf\n\nApril 24, 2020\nVIA EMAIL TO: mmeloy@targaresources.com\nMr. Matthew J. Meloy\nChief Executive Officer\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC\n811 Louisiana, Suite 2100\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 3-2019-6003\nDear Mr. Meloy:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $22,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Targa\nResources Operating, LLC, a subsidiary of Targa Resources Corporation, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. This also acknowledges receipt of payment of the full penalty\namount, by wire transfer, dated November 15, 2019. When the terms of the compliance order\nhave been completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action\nwill be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is deemed complete upon\ntransmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Gregg Johnson, Director of Pipeline Compliance, Targa Resources Corporation,\ngjohnson@targaresources.com\nMs. Julie Pabon, Senior Counsel, Targa Resources Corporation, jpabon@targaresources.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2019-6003\na subsidiary of Targa Resources Corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 26-28, July 24-26, and July 31-August 2, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Targa Resources Operating, LLC (Targa or Respondent), including its Saddle Butte\ncrude oil pipeline system in North Dakota. Targa is a subsidiary of Targa Resources\nCorporation,1 which provides midstream services in North America.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 26, 2019, 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 Targa had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 194.107(c)(1)(ix) and 195.264(b)(1)(i)\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $22,800 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nTarga Resources Corp. responded on Respondent’s behalf by letter dated October 25, 2019\n(Response).3 The company did not contest one of the allegations of violation and paid the\nproposed civil penalty of $22,800. Targa contested the other alleged violation and\naccompanying proposed compliance actions. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\n1 Targa Resources Corporation, 10-K, 2019 Annual Report, filed February 20, 2020, available at\nhttps://ir.targaresources.com/sec-filings/sec-filing/10-k/0001564590-20-005592 (last accessed on April 8, 2020).\n2 Targa Resources Corporation website, available at https://www.targaresources.com/about-us/overview (last\naccessed on April 8, 2020).\n3 The Response also responded to a separate Warning Letter, CPF 3-2019-6004W, and Notice of Amendment, CPF\n3-2019-6005M. Regarding CPF 3-2019-6004W, pursuant to § 190.205, an “operator may submit a response to a\nwarning, but is not required to. An adjudication under this subpart to determine whether a violation occurred is not\nconducted for warnings.” Regarding CPF 3-2019-6005M, that matter was closed November 26, 2019.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-6003\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 194 and 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(ix), which states:\n§ 194.107 General response plan requirements.\n(a) ...\n(c) Each response plan must include:\n(1) A core plan consisting of-\n(i) ...\n(ix) Drill program-an operator will satisfy the requirement for a drill\nprogram by following the National Preparedness for Response Exercise\nProgram (PREP) guidelines. An operator choosing not to follow PREP\nguidelines must have a drill program that is equivalent to PREP. The\noperator must describe the drill program in the response plan and OPS will\ndetermine if the program is equivalent to PREP.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(ix) by failing to satisfy\nthe requirements for a drill program which follow PREP Guidelines, Section 5.1, Drill: Qualified\nIndividual (QI) Notification, or the equivalent. With regard to frequency, Section 5.1 specifies\nthat QI notification drills must be conducted “as indicated by the response plan and, at a\nminimum, consistent with the triennial cycle (quarterly).” Specifically, Targa did not conduct QI\nnotification drills each quarter during the three-year period from 2015 through 2017. A total of\ntwelve quarterly notifications drills were not conducted. Targa provided no evidence that it\nfollowed a drill program that is equivalent to that set forth in PREP.\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. § 194.107(c)(1)(ix) by failing to\nsatisfy the requirements for a drill program which follow PREP Guidelines, Section 5.1, Drill: QI\nNotification, or the equivalent.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.264(b)(1)(i), which states:\n§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency\nventing or pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) A means must be provided for containing hazardous liquids in the\nevent of spillage or failure of an aboveground breakout tank.\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section\nrequires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks specified:\n(1) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as\nAPI Std 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C), the installation of\nimpoundment must be in accordance with the following section of NFPA-\n30 (2008 edition) (incorporated by reference per § 195.3);\n(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance\nwith section 22.11.2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-6003\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to satisfy the\nrequirements of Section 22.11.2 of NFPA-30 (2008 edition) regarding impoundment and ground\nslope around the breakout tanks. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the control of drainage of\nTanks 200 and 210 at the Johnson’s Corner facility and Tank 3000 at the New Town facility was\nnot accessible under fire conditions from outside the containment area as required by section\n22.11.2.7.1 of NFPA-30 (2008 edition). Section 22.11.2.7.1 states “[c]ontrol of drainage shall be\naccessible under fire conditions from outside the dike.” Additionally, field inspection of Tank\n210 at the Johnson’s Corner facility identified an area that did not have a slope of not less than\none percent away from the tank as required by section 22.11.2.1 of NFPA-30 (2008 edition).\nSection 22.11.2.1 states “[a] slope of not less than 1 percent away from the tanks shall be\nprovided for at least 50 feet or to the dike base, whichever is less.”\nIn its Response, Targa contested the allegation of violation and requested that it be withdrawn.\nTarga stated that access to the valve controlling the drainage meets the “intent” of the\nrequirement in NFPA-30. In reference to the access to control drainage from outside the\ncontainment requirement, Targa argued that NFPA-30 does not specify the means to access the\nvalve controlling the drainage. It stated that at the Johnson's Corner facility, the drain valve is\naccessed via a platform built above the containment dike and accessed from outside the dike.\nTarga explained that “The current installation configuration avoids the very realistic scenario of\nfilling the containment drainpipe up with water, freezing, and damaging the integrity of the\ndrainpipe/drain valve due to ice formation…. personnel do not have to climb inside the dike\n(beneath the top of [the] containment wall) to access the valve… [and a] platform is provided for\npersonnel to access the valve actuator without walking into the dike (beneath the top of [the]\ncontainment wall).”4\nI find that Targa has not met the requirements § 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to follow NFPA-30,\n22.11.2.7.1. Section 22.11.2.7.1 specifically focused on access “under fire conditions.” While\nTarga’s set up with the valve controlling drainage can be accessed from outside the dike, its\nposition is not conducive with access during fire conditions. The valve is placed on a platform\nthat runs away from the top of the dike, with the valve positioned directly over the dike.5 If there\nwas a fire in the dike, an operator would need to stand directly over the dike in order to access\nthe valve. Likewise, Targa’s explanation of its “current installation configuration” focuses on\navoiding scenarios involving water, freezing, and ice formation- not fire conditions as required in\nNFPA-30.\nTarga also contested the allegation that its containment was required to have a slope of not less\nthan one percent away from the tank. Targa argued that because this requirement is part of\nSubpart D, Construction, requirements that address maintenance of the impoundment are\ninapplicable. Targa therefore concluded that there was no regulatory obligation to maintain a\none percent slope after construction was completed.\nRegarding the slope away from the tank, I find Targa in violation of § 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing\n4 Response, at 3.\n5 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (September 26, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 19-12\n(photographs of access platforms).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-6003\nPage 4\nto meet the requirements in NFPA-30. In this case, the area surrounding the tank was observed\nduring the inspection after excavation/construction work related to the tank.6 Specifically, Targa\nwas engaged in work for the attachment of a conduit to the side of the concrete tank foundation\nduring which the operator removed soil creating a slope towards the tank. Section 195.264 and\nother regulations in Subpart D prescribe minimum requirements not only for constructing new\npipelines but “for relocating, replacing, or otherwise changing existing pipeline systems.”\n§ 195.200. In order to remain in compliance with § 195.264(b)(1)(i), Targa was required to\nrestore the slope away from the tank at the conclusion of this work.\nTarga’s argument that it no longer had a regulatory obligation to comply with § 195.264(b)(1)(i)\nbecause it “does not address maintenance requirements of the impoundment nor are the\nrequirements included in Subpart F Operations and Maintenance of Part 195” does not stand up\nunder scrutiny. Targa was engaged in construction work, and was required to remediate the\nnoncompliant condition created during that activity to ensure that the area around the tank had\nthe required one percent slope.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to satisfy the requirements of Section 22.11.2 of NFPA-30 (2008\nedition) regarding impoundment and ground slope around the breakout tanks.\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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.7 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 $22,800 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 194.107(c)(1)(ix), for failing to satisfy the requirements for a drill program which follow PREP\nGuidelines, Section 5.1, Drill: QI Notification, or the equivalent. Targa neither contested the\nallegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\n6 See Violation Report, at 22 (photograph of the area around the tank without a one percent slope).\n7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-6003\nPage 5\nRespondent a civil penalty of $22,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(ix), which\namount was paid in full by wire transfer on November 15, 2019.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for the violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.264(b)(1)(i). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.264(b)(1)(i) (Item 2), Respondent argued the compliance\nterms should be withdrawn because no violation was committed. I have rejected this argument\nabove. Therefore, I find that Targa must complete the proposed compliance actions.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.264(b)(1)(i) (Item 2), Respondent must:\na. Make alterations to the drainage control system so it can be accessed\nduring fire conditions;\nb. c. Alter the slope away from the tank as required by § 195.264(b)(1)(i); and\nComplete the above items within 90 days after the receipt of the Final\nOrder.\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.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-6003\nPage 6\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nApril 24, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320196003_NOPV PCP PCO_09262019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 26, 2019\nMr. Joe Bob Perkins\nChief Executive Officer\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC\n811 Louisiana, Suite 2100\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 3-2019-6003\nDear Mr. Perkins:\nOn June 26th-28th, July 24th-26th and July 31st-August 2nd of 2018, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601\nof 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected facilities and records of your Saddle Butte crude\noil pipeline system in North Dakota.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §194.107 General response plan requirements.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each response plan must include:\n(1) A core plan consisting of-\n(i) . . .\n(ix) Drill program—an operator will satisfy the requirement for a drill program\nby following the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP)\nguidelines. An operator choosing not to follow PREP guidelines must have a drill\nprogram that is equivalent to PREP. The operator must describe the drill\nprogram in the response plan and OPS will determine if the program is\nequivalent to PREP.\nPREP Guidelines, Section 5.1, Drill: Qualified Individual (QI) Notification\nFrequency: As indicated by the response plan and, at a minimum, consistent with\nthe triennial cycle (quarterly).\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC (Targa) failed to satisfy the requirements for a drill\nprogram which follow PREP Guidelines, Section 5.1, Drill: QI Notification.1\nSpecifically, Targa did not conduct QI notification drills each quarter during the three\nyear period from 2015 through 2017. A total of twelve (12) quarterly notifications\ndrills were not conducted.\n2. §195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency venting or\npressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) A means must be provided for containing hazardous liquids in the event of\nspillage or failure of an aboveground breakout tank.\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires\nthe following for the aboveground breakout tanks specified:\n(1) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as API Std\n650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C)), the installation of impoundment must be\nin accordance with the following section of NFPA-30 (2008 edition)(incorporated\nby reference per §195.3);\n(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance with\nsection 22.11.2.\nTarga failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 22.11.2 of NFPA-30 (2008 edition)\nregarding impoundment and ground slope around the breakout tanks.\nPHMSA’s field inspection of Tanks 200 & 210 at Targa Resources Johnson’s Corner\nfacility and Tank 3000 at the New Town facility found that control of drainage was not\naccessible under fire conditions from outside the containment area as required per\n1 Targa provided no evidence that it followed a drill program that is equivalent to that set forth in PREP.\n2\n\n\n\nsection 22.11.2.7.1 of NFPA-30 (2008 edition). Section 22.11.2.7.1 states “[c]ontrol\nof drainage shall be accessible under fire conditions from outside the dike.”\nAdditionally, field inspection of Tank 210 at Targa Resources Johnson’s Corner\nfacility identified an area that did not have a slope of not less than 1% away from the\ntank as required per section 22.11.2.1 of NFPA-30 (2008 edition). Section 22.11.2.1\nstates “[a] slope of not less than 1 percent away from the tanks shall be provided for at\nleast 50 feet or to the dike base, whichever is less”.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465\nfor a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and\nbefore July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after\nNovember 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For\nviolations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. . The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved for the above probable violation(s) and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $22,800 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $22,800\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Targa Resources Operating,\nLLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis 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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive\nmaterial qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete\noriginal document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\n3\n\n\n\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-6003 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\nCopy:\nMr. Clark White\nExecutive VP Engineering and Ops\nTarga Resources Operating, LLC\n811 Louisiana St., Suite 2100\nHouston, TX 77002\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Targa Resources Operating, LLC a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Targa\nResources Operating, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to (a) the provision for the control\nof drainage of open dike impoundment areas around tanks, the operator must make\nalterations to the drainage control system so it can be accessed during fire conditions;\nand (b) the provision that a slope of not less than 1% away from the tank shall be\nprovided for at least 50 feet, the operator must alter the slope away from the tank as\nrequired by §195.264(b)(1)(i).\nThe operator must complete the above item within 90 days after the receipt of the Final\nOrder.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Targa Resources Operating, LLC maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these\ncosts be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":28375}