# EQUISTAR PIPELINE OPERATIONS — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420045003_Final Order_08242004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420045003/420045003_Final%20Order_08242004.pdf

420045003_Final Order_08242004.pdf

o
U S. Deoortmenl
of Tronsportotion
Reseorch ond
Speciol Progroms Adminiiirolion
400 Seventh Sl.. S.W
Washrngtbn. D C 20590
AUG 2 4 2|lA4
Mr. Jeffrey Hernmer
Vice President
Equistar Pipeline Operations
l22l McKinney
One Houston Center
Houston, TX 77010
RE: CPF No. 4-2004-5003
DearMr. Hemmer:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $25,000. The
penaltypaynent terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically
upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes seruice of that document under 49 C.F.R.
$ 1e0.5.
Sincerely,
t\ t,r
A-^- VW----
U
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, OPS Southwest Region
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETLTRN RECEIPT REOUESTED



DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAF'ETY
WASHINGTON. DC 20590
In the Matter of
Equistar Pipeline Operations,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
CPFNo. 4-2004-5003
FINAL ORDER
Onluly22-25 and December 15, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 601 17, arepresentative ofthe Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities
and records for its Lake Charles, Louisiana to Orange, Texas 6-inch ethylene pipeline system. As
aresult ofthe inspection, theDirector, SouthwestRegion, OPS, issued to Respondent, byletterdated
March 3, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). Ir accordance
with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R.
8195.404 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $25,000 for the alleged violation. The Notice
also warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 2, 2004 (Response). Respondent contested
the allegation ofviolation, offered information to explain the allegations and requested that the
proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has
waived the rieht to one.
F'INDINGS OFVIOLATION
TheNoticeallegedthatRespondentviolated49C.F.R. $l95.404bynotmaintainingdailyoperating
records that indicate the discharge pressure at its Lake Charles to Orange 6-inch ethylene pipeline
system. ThepreviousOPSinspectionwasconductedonMarchT2,l999. AtthetimeoftheJrly22-
25,2003 OPS inspection, Respondent did not provide pump discharge pressure records for the
period of March 13, 1999 thru the date the plant was shut down, on or about February 17,2001
In response, Respondent argued that the pressure records were to be on file for at least the past tJuee
years and that Respondent was required to have and provided records from Jaly.22,2000 until the
date of the 2003 inspection. Respondent advised that at the time of the inspection, its SCADA
system was configured to only retain 3 months of data. Subsequently, Respondent reconfigured its
SCADA historical database to save pump discharge pressures for a period of four years. Respondent
further advised that it had hard copies of high and .low
pressure alarm records from its SCADA



2
system event logger for the period from February 17 ,2001 to July 22,2000. Respondent argued that
the SCADA alarm system continuously updates and documents any pressure spikes on the system
and that no alarms occured that meet this criteria. In support of its position, Respondent submitted
a graph that it contends documents alarms recorded during the time period in question which
indicates operation within permissible pressure limits. It is Respondent's contention that it has the
records from March 1999 to late 2000/early 2001.
At the time of the inspection, July 22-25 and December 15,2003, Respondent did not provide
discharge pressure records ofits Lake Charles to Orange 6-inch ethylene pipeline for the period
betweenMarchl3,l999andthedatetheplantwasshutdown.49C.F.R.$195.404(b)(1)provi
that each operator shall maintain for at least three years daily operating records that indicate the
discharge pressure at each pump station. "At least three years" is the minimal amount oftime these
records are to be kept.
Furthermore, the graph of alarm records submitted by Respondent for the period in question, are not
a sufficient pressure history and fail to meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. $195.404. Without the
required documentation it is difficult for an operator to ensure that the pipeline system is functioning
properly. Without this history, an operator increases the risk ofharm to its persorurel and the public.
Documentation is essential to provide the Operator a useful review tool for operating practices and
procedures. Accordingly, I find that Respondent's did not maintain daily operating records of
discharge pressure, as required by 49 C.F.R. $195.404.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF'PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. S 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 any related series of
violations. The Notice proposed a $25,000 civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.404.
49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 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.
The Notice proposed a civil penalty of$25,000, as Respondent failed to have daily operating records
that indicate the discharge pressure at its Lake Charles to Orange 6-inch ethylene pipeline system
from the date of the last inspection, March 13, 1999, until the date the plant was shut down. In
response to the Notice and in suppod of its position, Respondent argued it provided records for the
past tlree years as required by regulation and argued that the proposed $25,000 civil penalty should
be withdrawn, as it provided high and low pressure alarm records from its SCADA system event



3
logger as documentation ofdischarge pressures. Respondent is incorrect in its assertion that it is
only required to maintain records that go back for three years. Respondent is required to maintain
records for a minimum of three years and SCADA alarm documents during the time period in
question fail to satisfy 49 C.F.R. $ 195.404. Respondent failed to maintain sufficient pressure
history records. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justifu mitigation of the
proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,000, for violation of 49 c.F.R. $195.404.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.
$ 89.21(bX3)) require this paynent may be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve
Communications System (Fedwire), to the account ofthe U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are
contained in the enclosure. Questions conceming wire transfers should be directed to: Financial
Operations Division (AMZ-120I), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautica!
Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $25,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordancewith3l U.S.C. 53717,3 I C.'F.R. $ 901.9and49C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame
authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not
made within 1 10 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral
of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.
WARNINGITEMS
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or compliance action for this item in the Notice; therefore,
this is considered a warning item. Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action
to correct this item, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.
Item 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide records to demonstrate that it
inspected a five-foot section ofpipe for internal conosion when it was removed in 2002, as required
by 49 C.F.R. $ 195.579. When pipe is removed ftom a pipeline, the operator must inspect the
internal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 195.585, if
internal corrosion that requires corective action is found, the operator must investigate
circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the removed pipe to determine whether additional
corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the area of the removed pipe.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final
Order. The petition must be received within 20 days ofRespondent's receipt ofthis Final Order and
must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of a petition automatically stays the



4
payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms ofthe order, including anyrequired corrective
action, shall remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon written request, grants
a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.
AU0 2 4 :'004
Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
o
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 10320