{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420041001","title":"TRUNKLINE GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-01-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(a), 192.745.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420041001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420041001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420041001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420041001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRUNKLINE GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(a),  192.745. The case was opened on 2004-01-20 and is reported as closed as of 2005-04-20. Proposed civil penalty: $36,500. Assessed civil penalty: $36,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420041001_Final Order_03292005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420041001/420041001_Final%20Order_03292005.pdf\n\ncpf_420041001.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420041001/cpf_420041001.pdf\n\n420041001_Final Order_03292005.pdf\n\n@\nU.S. Deportment\nof Tronsporlotion\nPipeline ond\nHozqrdous moteriols sofety\nAdminbtrotlon\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nfv{4fi 2 g i*ill\nMr. Richard Keyser\nVice President - Engineering and Technical Services\nTrunkline Gas Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 4-2004-1001\nDear Mr. Keyser:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $36,500. The\npenaltypayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.\n$ 190.5.\nSincerely,\nh ,/'I\nAr**, fkL-*\n6 t Y\nJames Repolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure\nRod Seeley, Region Director\nSouthwest Region, OPS\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nTrunkline Gas Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 4-2004-1001\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 2l and September 12,2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 601I'7, arepresentative of the\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's\nfacilities and records pertaining to Premont, Victoria, Cypress, Kountze, Longville, Pollock, Epps,\nPatterson, Kaplan, and Houma Offshore Sub Area pipeline systems. As a result of the inspection,\nthe Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 20,2004, a\nNotice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n$ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $36,500 for the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated February 19,2004 (Response). Respondent\noffered explanations regarding the merits of the allegations, and requested that the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits risht to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S Ig2.465by failing to demonstrate\nthat required cathodic protection (pipe-to-soil) testing was conducted at certain locations on Lines\n100-2 and 100-3 in 2001 and on Lines 668-100 and66B-200 in2002. In its Response, Respondent\nacknowledged that pipe-to-soil tests were not conducted at the test points specified in the Notice\nduring the relevant time frame. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 5 192.465 by failing\nto demonstr atethatcathodic protection testing was conducted at the specified locations as more fully\ndescribed in the Notice.\niiem2 in the Noiice aiiege<i that R.espondeni vioiaterj 49 C.F.R. 5 i92.745 by faiiing io demonstrate\nthatrequired inspections were conducted on certain transmission line valves located at the Patterson\nSub Area and Paterson Compressor Station in 2001, and at the Centerville and Kaplan Sub Areas\nin2000-2002. Inits Response, Respondent acknowledged that the specified valves were inspected\n\n\n\n2\n\"later than the due date.\" Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 5 192.745 by failing to\ndemonstrate that inspections were conducted on the specified transmission line valves as more fully\ndescribed in the Notice.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for anyrelated series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,500 for Respondent's failure to\ndemonstrate that cathodic protection testing was conducted at certain locations on Lines 100-2 and\n100-3 in 2001 and on Lines 668-100 and 668-200 in2002. Section 192.465 requires pipeline\noperators to test their cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether or not the cathodic protection meets\napplicable requirements.\nIn its Response, Respondent acknowledged that the pipe-to-soil tests were not conducted at the test\npoints specified in the Notice during the relevant time frames, but explained that the test points were\ninaccessible due to \"adverse\" conditions although Respondent did not describe the conditions.\nRespondent also stated that the specified test points were monitored in prior and subsequent periods,\nand that it believed the cathodic protection level was not compromised and the safety of its pipeline\nwas not affected by the omission of these tests. Respondent further explained that a combination\nof technician retirements and a supervisor being on long-term disability may have conkibuted to its\nfailure to ensure that all required cathodic protection testing was timely conducted in the relevant\narea.\nAdequate cathodic protection is an essential part of controlling corrosion on buried pipelines. ln\norder to ensure the adequacy of the cathodic protection, periodic testing rnust be performed on a\ntimelybasis. While theregilations provide a limited degree offlexibilitymainlyto account forpoor\nwcather conditions, in this case the absence of test readings was not fsl!sr,','ed-up on within a matter\nof weeks, but rather, for the majority of the specified test stations there was a gap of approximately\n28 months between readings. Respondent has not submitted information that would warrant a\nreduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,500 for the above described violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 192.465.\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,000 for Respondent's failure to\ndemonstrate that required inspections were timely conducted on 75 valves located atthe Patterson\nSub Area and Paterson Compressor Station in 2001 (the Patterson Valves), and on 3 valves located\nat the Centerville Sub Area and the Kaplan Sub Area in 2000-2002 (the Centerville & Kaplan\nValves). Section 192.745 requires pipeline operators to inspect ar:d partially operate each\ntransmission line valve that might be required during an emergency at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\nIn its Response, Respondent acknowledged that the Patterson Valves were inspected later than the\ndue date, but explained that a supervisory change resulted in the valves being inspected later than\nthe due date but still within 15 months of the previous inspection and again 10 months later.\nRespondent also stated that it has made companypolicy and persormel changes designed to ensure\nthat periodic maintenance is timely performed on all line valves in the area. Respondent further\nexpiained that although it did not have records demonstrating that the Centerville & Kaplan Valves\nwere timely inspected, the fact that these valves were in close proximity to other valves that it did\nhave inspection records for, along with the recollections of its personnel, gave it reason to believe\nthat inspections actually did occur but were not recorded. Respondent also stated that it has now\nupgraded its automated compliance tracking system.\nProperlyfunctioningtransmission line valves are essential to the safe operation of apipeline system\nbecause these valves can be critical during an emergency. In order to ensure that these valves are\nproperly maintained, they must be periodically inspected and partially operated on a timely basis.\nWhile Respondent did undertake corrective measures by making company policy and personnel\nchanges and upgrading its compliance tracking system, these measures were undertaken only after\nthe OPS inspection and in response to this enforcement action. Respondent has not submitted\ninformation that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for\nthis violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,000 for the above described\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. g 192.745.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $36,500.\nPa)rment of the civil penalty must be'made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. $ 89.21(bX3)) require this payment be made bywire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\n(-enter- P O Rnv )Sn?3 Oklrhorna Cit.r OK 7112-5: (405\\954-8893.\nv w l l L v l , I . v . u v ^ L J v v - , v r \\ r 4 r r v ! r r r v r ! J t v l l\nFailure to pay the $36,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordancewith3lU.S.C. 93717,31C.F.R. $901.9 and49 C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame\n\n\n\n4\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) perannum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to paythe civil penaltymay result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days of\nRespondent'sreceiptofthisFinalOrderandmustcontainabriefstatementoftheissue(s). Thefiling\nof a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent\nsubmits payrnent for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and\nthe right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\ntlllAn ? s !rl{;t\nDate Issued\nAdministrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11291}