# TRUNKLINE GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420041001_Final Order_03292005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420041001/420041001_Final%20Order_03292005.pdf

cpf_420041001.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420041001/cpf_420041001.pdf

420041001_Final Order_03292005.pdf

@
U.S. Deportment
of Tronsporlotion
Pipeline ond
Hozqrdous moteriols sofety
Adminbtrotlon
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
fv{4fi 2 g i*ill
Mr. Richard Keyser
Vice President - Engineering and Technical Services
Trunkline Gas Company
5444 Westheimer Road
Houston, TX 77056
Re: CPF No. 4-2004-1001
Dear Mr. Keyser:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $36,500. The
penaltypayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically
upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.
$ 190.5.
Sincerely,
h ,/'I
Ar**, fkL-*
6 t Y
James Repolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline SafetY
Enclosure
Rod Seeley, Region Director
Southwest Region, OPS



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON. DC 20590
In the Matter of
Trunkline Gas Company,
Respondent.
CPF No. 4-2004-1001
FINAL ORDER
Between July 2l and September 12,2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 601I'7, arepresentative of the
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's
facilities and records pertaining to Premont, Victoria, Cypress, Kountze, Longville, Pollock, Epps,
Patterson, Kaplan, and Houma Offshore Sub Area pipeline systems. As a result of the inspection,
the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 20,2004, a
Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.
$ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R.
Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $36,500 for the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated February 19,2004 (Response). Respondent
offered explanations regarding the merits of the allegations, and requested that the proposed civil
penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived
its risht to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S Ig2.465by failing to demonstrate
that required cathodic protection (pipe-to-soil) testing was conducted at certain locations on Lines
100-2 and 100-3 in 2001 and on Lines 668-100 and66B-200 in2002. In its Response, Respondent
acknowledged that pipe-to-soil tests were not conducted at the test points specified in the Notice
during the relevant time frame. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 5 192.465 by failing
to demonstr atethatcathodic protection testing was conducted at the specified locations as more fully
described in the Notice.
iiem2 in the Noiice aiiege<i that R.espondeni vioiaterj 49 C.F.R. 5 i92.745 by faiiing io demonstrate
thatrequired inspections were conducted on certain transmission line valves located at the Patterson
Sub Area and Paterson Compressor Station in 2001, and at the Centerville and Kaplan Sub Areas
in2000-2002. Inits Response, Respondent acknowledged that the specified valves were inspected



2
"later than the due date." Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 5 192.745 by failing to
demonstrate that inspections were conducted on the specified transmission line valves as more fully
described in the Notice.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for anyrelated series of
violations.
49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree
of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the
penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's
ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
With respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,500 for Respondent's failure to
demonstrate that cathodic protection testing was conducted at certain locations on Lines 100-2 and
100-3 in 2001 and on Lines 668-100 and 668-200 in2002. Section 192.465 requires pipeline
operators to test their cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether or not the cathodic protection meets
applicable requirements.
In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that the pipe-to-soil tests were not conducted at the test
points specified in the Notice during the relevant time frames, but explained that the test points were
inaccessible due to "adverse" conditions although Respondent did not describe the conditions.
Respondent also stated that the specified test points were monitored in prior and subsequent periods,
and that it believed the cathodic protection level was not compromised and the safety of its pipeline
was not affected by the omission of these tests. Respondent further explained that a combination
of technician retirements and a supervisor being on long-term disability may have conkibuted to its
failure to ensure that all required cathodic protection testing was timely conducted in the relevant
area.
Adequate cathodic protection is an essential part of controlling corrosion on buried pipelines. ln
order to ensure the adequacy of the cathodic protection, periodic testing rnust be performed on a
timelybasis. While theregilations provide a limited degree offlexibilitymainlyto account forpoor
wcather conditions, in this case the absence of test readings was not fsl!sr,','ed-up on within a matter
of weeks, but rather, for the majority of the specified test stations there was a gap of approximately
28 months between readings. Respondent has not submitted information that would warrant a
reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess



3
Respondent a civil penalty of $5,500 for the above described violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 192.465.
With respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,000 for Respondent's failure to
demonstrate that required inspections were timely conducted on 75 valves located atthe Patterson
Sub Area and Paterson Compressor Station in 2001 (the Patterson Valves), and on 3 valves located
at the Centerville Sub Area and the Kaplan Sub Area in 2000-2002 (the Centerville & Kaplan
Valves). Section 192.745 requires pipeline operators to inspect ar:d partially operate each
transmission line valve that might be required during an emergency at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year.
In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that the Patterson Valves were inspected later than the
due date, but explained that a supervisory change resulted in the valves being inspected later than
the due date but still within 15 months of the previous inspection and again 10 months later.
Respondent also stated that it has made companypolicy and persormel changes designed to ensure
that periodic maintenance is timely performed on all line valves in the area. Respondent further
expiained that although it did not have records demonstrating that the Centerville & Kaplan Valves
were timely inspected, the fact that these valves were in close proximity to other valves that it did
have inspection records for, along with the recollections of its personnel, gave it reason to believe
that inspections actually did occur but were not recorded. Respondent also stated that it has now
upgraded its automated compliance tracking system.
Properlyfunctioningtransmission line valves are essential to the safe operation of apipeline system
because these valves can be critical during an emergency. In order to ensure that these valves are
properly maintained, they must be periodically inspected and partially operated on a timely basis.
While Respondent did undertake corrective measures by making company policy and personnel
changes and upgrading its compliance tracking system, these measures were undertaken only after
the OPS inspection and in response to this enforcement action. Respondent has not submitted
information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for
this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,000 for the above described
violation of 49 C.F.R. g 192.745.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent
a total civil penalty of $36,500.
Pa)rment of the civil penalty must be'made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. $ 89.21(bX3)) require this payment be made bywire transfer, through the Federal Reserve
Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are
contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial
Operations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical
(-enter- P O Rnv )Sn?3 Oklrhorna Cit.r OK 7112-5: (405\954-8893.
v 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
Failure to pay the $36,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordancewith3lU.S.C. 93717,31C.F.R. $901.9 and49 C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame



4
authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) perannum will be charged if payment is not
made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to paythe civil penaltymay result in referral
of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this
Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days of
Respondent'sreceiptofthisFinalOrderandmustcontainabriefstatementoftheissue(s). Thefiling
of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent
submits payrnent for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and
the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are
effective on receipt.
tlllAn ? s !rl{;t
Date Issued
Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 11291