{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420045003","title":"EQUISTAR PIPELINE OPERATIONS — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404, 195.579(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420045003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420045003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420045003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420045003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EQUISTAR PIPELINE OPERATIONS. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404,  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2004-03-03 and is reported as closed as of 2004-10-06. Proposed civil penalty: $25,000. Assessed civil penalty: $25,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420045003_Final Order_08242004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420045003/420045003_Final%20Order_08242004.pdf\n\n420045003_Final Order_08242004.pdf\n\no\nU S. Deoortmenl\nof Tronsportotion\nReseorch ond\nSpeciol Progroms Adminiiirolion\n400 Seventh Sl.. S.W\nWashrngtbn. D C 20590\nAUG 2 4 2|lA4\nMr. Jeffrey Hernmer\nVice President\nEquistar Pipeline Operations\nl22l McKinney\nOne Houston Center\nHouston, TX 77010\nRE: CPF No. 4-2004-5003\nDearMr. Hemmer:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $25,000. The\npenaltypaynent terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes seruice of that document under 49 C.F.R.\n$ 1e0.5.\nSincerely,\nt\\ t,r\nA-^- VW----\nU\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nMr. R. M. Seeley, Director, OPS Southwest Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETLTRN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAF'ETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nEquistar Pipeline Operations,\nRespondent.\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPFNo. 4-2004-5003\nFINAL ORDER\nOnluly22-25 and December 15, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 601 17, arepresentative ofthe Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities\nand records for its Lake Charles, Louisiana to Orange, Texas 6-inch ethylene pipeline system. As\naresult ofthe inspection, theDirector, SouthwestRegion, OPS, issued to Respondent, byletterdated\nMarch 3, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). Ir accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R.\n8195.404 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $25,000 for the alleged violation. The Notice\nalso warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 2, 2004 (Response). Respondent contested\nthe allegation ofviolation, offered information to explain the allegations and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has\nwaived the rieht to one.\nF'INDINGS OFVIOLATION\nTheNoticeallegedthatRespondentviolated49C.F.R. $l95.404bynotmaintainingdailyoperating\nrecords that indicate the discharge pressure at its Lake Charles to Orange 6-inch ethylene pipeline\nsystem. ThepreviousOPSinspectionwasconductedonMarchT2,l999. AtthetimeoftheJrly22-\n25,2003 OPS inspection, Respondent did not provide pump discharge pressure records for the\nperiod of March 13, 1999 thru the date the plant was shut down, on or about February 17,2001\nIn response, Respondent argued that the pressure records were to be on file for at least the past tJuee\nyears and that Respondent was required to have and provided records from Jaly.22,2000 until the\ndate of the 2003 inspection. Respondent advised that at the time of the inspection, its SCADA\nsystem was configured to only retain 3 months of data. Subsequently, Respondent reconfigured its\nSCADA historical database to save pump discharge pressures for a period of four years. Respondent\nfurther advised that it had hard copies of high and .low\npressure alarm records from its SCADA\n\n\n\n2\nsystem event logger for the period from February 17 ,2001 to July 22,2000. Respondent argued that\nthe SCADA alarm system continuously updates and documents any pressure spikes on the system\nand that no alarms occured that meet this criteria. In support of its position, Respondent submitted\na graph that it contends documents alarms recorded during the time period in question which\nindicates operation within permissible pressure limits. It is Respondent's contention that it has the\nrecords from March 1999 to late 2000/early 2001.\nAt the time of the inspection, July 22-25 and December 15,2003, Respondent did not provide\ndischarge pressure records ofits Lake Charles to Orange 6-inch ethylene pipeline for the period\nbetweenMarchl3,l999andthedatetheplantwasshutdown.49C.F.R.$195.404(b)(1)provi\nthat each operator shall maintain for at least three years daily operating records that indicate the\ndischarge pressure at each pump station. \"At least three years\" is the minimal amount oftime these\nrecords are to be kept.\nFurthermore, the graph of alarm records submitted by Respondent for the period in question, are not\na sufficient pressure history and fail to meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. $195.404. Without the\nrequired documentation it is difficult for an operator to ensure that the pipeline system is functioning\nproperly. Without this history, an operator increases the risk ofharm to its persorurel and the public.\nDocumentation is essential to provide the Operator a useful review tool for operating practices and\nprocedures. Accordingly, I find that Respondent's did not maintain daily operating records of\ndischarge pressure, as required by 49 C.F.R. $195.404.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF'PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. S 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 any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a $25,000 civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.404.\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 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.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of$25,000, as Respondent failed to have daily operating records\nthat indicate the discharge pressure at its Lake Charles to Orange 6-inch ethylene pipeline system\nfrom the date of the last inspection, March 13, 1999, until the date the plant was shut down. In\nresponse to the Notice and in suppod of its position, Respondent argued it provided records for the\npast tlree years as required by regulation and argued that the proposed $25,000 civil penalty should\nbe withdrawn, as it provided high and low pressure alarm records from its SCADA system event\n\n\n\n3\nlogger as documentation ofdischarge pressures. Respondent is incorrect in its assertion that it is\nonly required to maintain records that go back for three years. Respondent is required to maintain\nrecords for a minimum of three years and SCADA alarm documents during the time period in\nquestion fail to satisfy 49 C.F.R. $ 195.404. Respondent failed to maintain sufficient pressure\nhistory records. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justifu mitigation of the\nproposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,000, for violation of 49 c.F.R. $195.404.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n$ 89.21(bX3)) require this paynent may be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account ofthe U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions conceming wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-120I), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautica!\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $25,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordancewith3l U.S.C. 53717,3 I C.'F.R. $ 901.9and49C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 1 10 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.\nWARNINGITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or compliance action for this item in the Notice; therefore,\nthis is considered a warning item. Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action\nto correct this item, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide records to demonstrate that it\ninspected a five-foot section ofpipe for internal conosion when it was removed in 2002, as required\nby 49 C.F.R. $ 195.579. When pipe is removed ftom a pipeline, the operator must inspect the\ninternal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 195.585, if\ninternal corrosion that requires corective action is found, the operator must investigate\ncircumferentially and longitudinally beyond the removed pipe to determine whether additional\ncorrosion requiring remedial action exists in the area of the removed pipe.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder. The petition must be received within 20 days ofRespondent's receipt ofthis Final Order and\nmust contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of a petition automatically stays the\n\n\n\n4\npayment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms ofthe order, including anyrequired corrective\naction, shall remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon written request, grants\na stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nAU0 2 4 :'004\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\no","truncated":false,"body_characters":10320}